[Marsha] Thank you for finding the reference. I remember you stating that too much has been said about DQ. Is that true with the exception of your definitions? Quality, Dynamic Quality, the Way, NoThingness, Emptiness. All are names for something that cannot be conceptionally known. Do you disagree?
[Krimel] Kinda sorta but not so much. Obviously, I think Dynamic Quality refers to Yang or the active, dynamic aspect of Quality. Quality I think refers to a way of understanding the Tao and The Way refers to what I see as slightly better way of understanding the Tao. If by nothingness or emptiness we mean the space inside the cup that makes the cup a cup or a pot a pot, yes. But I don't think any of these refer to anything particularly mystical or mysterious. The Tao is formless as a lump of clay or an uncarved block or water is formless. It is not being. It is becoming. We can talk about what it is or what it was but not so much about what it will be. It is not that it can not be conceptually known so much as what it is known as now may not be what it is known as later. It is organic and changing. It is a winding path; a journey not a destination. It does not defy description so much as that it sloughs off description. There is a major distinction to be made between sensation and perception. Sensation is the activation of the sensory nerves. Perception is the organization and integration of sensation. It is the making sense of sense or the sense of senses. The Tao is more easily sensed than perceived. We can respond directly to the senses as the hot stove example illustrates but perception is a trickier matter. The danger of perception lies in the calcification of classification. When we are "only" able to perceive things in a certain way, we are trapped in Maya; locked into an illusion. The sage learns to let the Tao shape perception and not to let perception shape the Tao. I suppose practices that encourage the pursuit of formlessness or oneness might be fine for lots of people. Personally I just go to sleep. Since I spend as much time in a formless state of sleep as I can, this does not seem to me to be something I need to devote extra time to. On the other hand I find imagining new points of view and altering perception quite helpful in learning to recognize perception for what it is and not getting too locked into one set or another. SA: I see dq as the quality of ZMM. I also see static quality the quality of ZMM. How I orient myself is the question, "What is Quality?", Pirsig asked and the answer to this question seemed infinite, if not infinite through and through. Here's the orientation of mine as follows: The question "What is Quality?" is unanswerable or in other words, has no final answer, that's the dynamic aspect of Quality. The answer given to this question of Quality is the static aspect of Quality. [Krimel] I am with you on the no final answer part but you put a bit more stock in mystical double speak than I am comfortable with. It's the kind of talk gurus use to keep their disciples guessing and off balance. No matter what you think it's wrong because you are thinking. That just puts me to sleep and "Aha" there it is... If Quality can't be defined then at least it can be described and two really good adjectives to describe it are static and dynamic. The issue at hand here is that in Lila Pirsig ignores this and uses DQ a lot when he is talking about the Quality of ZMM. He does admit that he prefers it and over emphasizes it and tries to correct this by saying that without the dynamic things can't change and without the static they can't last or something to that effect. But the damage is done. He does use DQ as Quality and he does speak of it in such loving terms that the destroyer aspect of Shiva is all but ignored. So when you say that the question "What is Quality?" has no final answer; I say perhaps but if we share and experience and I ask, "Was that Quality?" you could probably give a definitive answer and give it in terms of the high or low Value you found in the experience. Pirsig almost never talks about DQ as having low Value. He almost never talks about it as being change. He talks about it as a movement toward betterness but I think it is just movement. Betterness or Worsterness are perceptions of Value that we attach to the experience of Quality. Frankly, I think SQ actually IS betterness. To the extent that something is fixed, it can be counted on. It is stabile. It is foundational. It can be taken for granted. We can stop worrying about it. To my way of thinking it just doesn't get any better than that. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
