[Platt] DQ is something we perceive and, under some circumstances, respond to.
[Arlo] In other words, DQ is something "external" to experience. Ai yi yi. [Platt] Otherwise, how to explain: [Platt's favorite decontextualized quotes snipped for the moment] [Arlo] These quotes, taken out of context, do indeed make it seem like DQ is some external force that experience is a response to. However, this holds no water, and the frightful logic from that simply makes the MOQ another religion (of course, you want a Qualigod, so its no surprise you push this). I'm going to skip to the most horrendous thing I've heard anyone hear say in a long time... [Platt] [Dynamic Quality] is part of the Quality experience. But it not part of everyday experience.. [Arlo] A thousand angels just lost their wings. I just don't even know how anyone can profess to understand the MOQ and make such an egregious misunderstanding. The Quality Experience IS everyday experience, and if DQ is "part" of the Quality Experience, it is also inherent to everyday experience. DQ is the moment of experience, the response of the organism to its environment, it is the microsecond of experience that occurs every second of every day. "Static responses" are merely preferable responses of the organism to DQ. I understand how important it is for you to avoid all things ZMM. And its such a shame, because as Pirsig says "ZMM is the path TO enlightenment". You don't understand ZMM, forget LILA. An amoeba moves away from nearby acid. A man jumps off a hot stove. How on earth can you say ONE is a response to DQ but the other a "static biological response". At that moment of experience, BOTH the amoeba and the man are "responding to DQ". Or better said, DQ is something the realize through responding to their environment. As their responses become predictable, they become seen to us as "static patterns", patterns of preferred response. DQ is not everyday lived experience? Ai yi yi yi yi... What's "predictable" is how you isolate particular quotes from one book, that decontextualized satiate your need for a Qualigod; an external force that is apart from us, that chooses and selects and applies to certain situations, but not others. You have isolated the quotes that, again decontextualized, turn Quality into a God. Imagine that. Wow. I'm shocked. [Platt's quotes] "This, Phaedrus thought, was why little children are usually quicker to PERCEIVE Dynamic Quality than old people... [Arlo] It's just bad rhetoric, but he's using an understood vernacular. Both old people and young people CAN respond to immediate experience (DQ) in a field of possible ways, but older people have many more learned analogues, and these analogues increase the probability of certain preferred responses. BOTH old people and young people, and all people, at all times, are experiencing, are "in the DQ moment" if you want another anaologue, its their responses that have differing probabilities, since older people have many habituated analogues. [Another quote] "The patterns of life are constantly evolving in RESPONSE to something 'better' than that which these laws have to offer." (Lila, 11) [Arlo] Here, I agree, Pirsig sets up DQ to sound like an external force. Its wrong, and thankfully something he doesn't repeat often. He should have said, "The patterns of life are constantly experiencing and responding (in the DQ moment), and every now and again respond improbably, and sometimes that improbable response produces a great reward and so increases in probability. [Another] "These patterns can't by themselves PERCEIVE or ADJUST to Dynamic Quality. Only a living being can do that.' (Lila, 9) [Arlo] This is the worst of Pirsig's rhetorical errors. Again, if he wants to be on firm ground, he should have said; "Only a living being can respond to its experience (DQ) with a repertoire of responses limited to (and made possible by) its biological complexity. Some living beings, with sufficient complexity, can respond to experience (DQ) with a social level set of analogues. Others, notably "man", can respond to its experience (DQ) with an intellectual set of analogues. Wisely, this is precisely how Andre understood this quote. [Platt] As for DQ being a force, like energy, one need only refer to such statements as: [Arlo] DQ as a "force" in a rhetorical and metaphorical way of talking about DQ, but you have taken it literally, and in doing so have set DQ up to be a God. It is NOT something external, it is NOT a force "like energy", DQ IS EVERYDAY LIVED EXPERIENCE, it is the MOMENT OF RESPONSE TO EXPERIENCE. [Platt] If someone has a contrary view, they ought to be able to support it with the evidence of quotations from Pirsig's writings after ZMM... [Arlo] ZMM is the path to enlightenment (Pirsig). You simply can't ignore what he says there because it challenges your decontextual quotes. If you read the archives (and when I get to my office next I can repost) you'll see that on each and every occasion this comes up I provide NUMEROUS LILA quotes, and all that does is leave you (as Ron noted as well) "using Pirsig to disprove Pirsig". You are the ONLY one here that, rather than seeking to synthesize Pirsig's ideas, actually use ONE quote to deny ANOTHER. Its outrageous. Andre, if you are new enough to need proof of this, I will point you to the archives where this occurs repeatedly. Consider Pirsig's example of a man who passes a radio and hears a new song, and this sets forth unpredicted responses. Pirsig uses this to illustrate DQ. So, I ask, if DQ is not present in "everyday experience", why was it present there? Let's say this man had a friend with him who was already familiar with this song. Was the "force" of DQ present in the same moment for one man but not other? Would it have been impossible for the second man to have a "dynamic" (unpredicted) response? Was it there for the second man but he was unable to perceive it? Was it a "force" that decided to act only on the first man? In the same event, is DQ "present" for one person but not for another? You see the beginnings of the frightful logic that comes from considering DQ to be an "external force" that it not present in "everyday experience". If not, I can gladly keep going on that. Or is DQ _always_ there, in each and every moment? YES! The difference was the first man would have had no analogues, no habits, no preferred way of responding, and so had a HIGH probability or responding to his experience (DQ) unexpectedly. The second man would have had analogues, and so had a LOW probability of responding to this experience (DQ) unexpectedly. But BOTH could have. Anyone can post decontextual quotes, but apparently not everyone can think through what they propose. Just like with "chance/DQ", just like with "only man can respond to DQ", when the ramifications of your proposals are brought to bear, all you can do is dig a hole in the sand and bury your head. 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/
