[Andre] Not sure if I understand you correctly here. Yes, 'all things tend towards preference' but 'achieved' preference needs to be preserved, latched.
[Arlo] Hi Andre. Well, I'm just using Pirsig's terminology that "static patterns" are preferred patterns of value. In this sense, "preference" is what we see when see "static patterns"; or to add your word, "static patterns" ARE achieved preference. In this since, the very presence of inorganic patterns of value indicates that even subatomic particles tend towards certain preferred responses, i.e., they tend towards preference. Yes, in the MOQ "preference" is the mode of "locking DQ", of latching, and if things didn't tend towards preference, if things (beginning with the smallest of small subatomic quarks and such) DIDN'T tend towards preference (but responded differently ALL the time) the cosmos would be naught but chaos. Going back to that zero-moment, the "ongoing dynamic edge of experience", we see that this is the balance that creates and preserves. Although the DQ moment of NOW always contains the seed of uncertainty, preference keeps that uncertainty from reducing the cosmos into chaos soup. Thus "static/dynamic" is akin to "preference/uncertainty". That's really all I'm saying here. Since I read LILA I was unhappy with the term "static", at least the connotations of dead, lifeless, unexciting, etc. I was also unhappy with the capitalization of "Dynamic" and "Dynamic Quality" contrasted to "static" and "static quality" (people even write DQ/sq). Although Pirsig has since clarified that he sees these as equally necessary and complimentary, there is little doubt that this initial rhetoric has led to the demonizing of "static quality" and the adulation of "Dynamic Quality" (as godly, just read Platt). This is why I emphasize that "static patterns" are "patterns of preferred value". They are not dead, lifeless or unexciting. They are the Gestalt we see atop a swarm of immediate experiences. And the tendency towards preference is, coupled with dynamic uncertainty, the complimentary dance that fuels evolution. To emphasize, there are NO "static responses". "Static" comes later, a Gestalt, an illusion created by this tendency towards preference. What we call "static" is the illusion of consistency generated by this fundamental tendency towards preferred value. ALL response to experience occurs, at that zero-moment, at the ongoing dynamic edge of experience, at the "cutting-edge of reality". "Static" comes later, as preferred responses to this moment become more and more probable. [Andre] I agree with you; we all need routine, predictability, assurance and re-assurance. This does not mean that DQ is not available to us all the time to challenge us, to suspend, alter or shatter our routines. [Arlo] Of course not. I fully agree. And if you read that into what I said about "things tend towards preference", I apologize for not being clearer. Certainly, what I have been arguing for days here recently is precisely what you say, that DQ IS available at every moment of every day, it is the NOW, the immediate experience that contains the seed of uncertainty. ZMM was a book about shattering analogues and returning to the zero-moment of immediate experience without (or with reduced) probability that our preferred responses would blind us to the potential uncertainty that may lead us to something better. [Andre] The extent to which we are comfortable in our routines will determine the extent to which we allow ourselves to respond/ be open to DQ. [Arlo] Hehe.. okay, you likely saw this one coming, but since we are so close in agreement, I'm going to nitpick again and say that I do not like "respond to DQ" as it sets up DQ to be some outside force that we merely "respond to". I do understand the metaphor here, for sure, and I appreciate Pirsig's use of vernacular to make this particular idea clear, but there is a danger to the MOQ (IMHO) to keep setting up DQ as some external force we respond to. This is what drives Platt's Qualigod concept. Better to say, "The extent to which we are comfortable in our routines will determine the extent to which we allow ourselves to respond in unpredicted ways (in new ways, in creative ways, in uncertain ways) to our immediate experience". [Platt] If Platt argues that he doesn't experience DQ all the time or that he doesn't have a deep, mystical DQ experience (that it is rare and not available to just anyone) says more about Platt than DQ. [Arlo] Sure does. 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/
