Steve, I'm not arguing from a Pragmatist's point-of-view. So bear with me if I don't apply the correct lingo. Static patterns represent the past, though, as events they are applied to a field of dynamic quality which alters and renews them. DQ is unknowable! -
No, no, no... I am not qualified to play this circle game. If you know anything about Buddhism, you have heard the expression: form is emptiness, emptiness is form. It's all Buddha and Buddha is empty. I translate that into Quality is static quality, static quality is Quality. Quality is indivisible, undefinable and unknowable. Static patterns are the ghosts of past events. I have said that the only way the Ultimate Truth can be approached is by discovering what is false. Maybe I will say that the only way Quality can be approached is by discovering that static patterns are ghosts. Knowledge-that, knowledge-how might be helpful, but I haven't given either much thought. The two seem to be entangled, don't you think? Marsha On May 11, 2010, at 10:34 AM, Steven Peterson wrote: > Hi Marsha, Matt, all, > > On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 8:45 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> >> I don't see how DQ can be whatever one has in one's mind to make it. >> DQ is unknowable. > > Steve: > DQ is in a way unknowable but it is also the only thing we ever know. > It is the only thing there is to know. Hmmm.... > > RMP: > Dynamic Quality is defined constantly by everyone. Consciousness can > be described is a > process of defining Dynamic Quality. But once the definitions emerge > they are static > patterns and no longer apply to Dynamic Quality. So one can say > correctly that Dynamic > Quality is both infinitely definable and undefinable because > definition never exhausts it. > > > Steve: > I think Matt's reference to "know-how" versus "know-that" can help > solve this koan. Pragmatically, to know a thing is to be able to use > it and put it in relation to other things. This is know-how knowing > that applies to everything--even DQ. We DO have know-how knowledge of > DQ because we know how to experience quality. In fact, we don't even > know-how to ever not experience quality. > > What we don't have is know-that intellectual knowledge that could ever > exhaust DQ. Know-that is knowledge about the truth of sentences. In > fact, it seems that many of the things (if not all) that we say in a > know-that way about DQ are simultaneously true and false, so there is > no know-that knowledge of DQ. There is only know-that knowledge about > our know-how knowledge. This is Pirsig's pre-post intellectual > distinction. Know-how is pre-intellectual and primary. Know-that is > always secondary because it is knowledge about our know-how rather > than knowledge of DQ. > > I think at this point though, Matt would ask, "okay, so you have > created a primary/secondary distinction. What does this distinction do > for you?" Clearly some have wanted to use it as supporting > anti-intellectualism. As seconday, it is taken to be inferior. I think > that is a poor readingt of Pirsig. > > Knowledge-that increases our know-how. Pirsig of ZAMM set out to show > that classical know-that has its own aesthetic and opens new > possibilities for know-how and then new know-thats in response to the > new know-hows in a feeback loop building up analogues upon analogues. > Intellect, like everything else, has static and dynamic aspects. > Intellect is not divorced from know-how. > > Knowledge-that doesn't use itself and doesn't create itself. > Knowledge-that is also always know-how (though only intellectual > know-how is called knowledge-that.) Knowledge-that is the intellectual > level in that the set of all intellectual patterns of value is that > the set of all knowledge-that. Know-how is the dynamic aspect of > knowledge and can be thought of as being at work on all levels, but on > other levels, know-how doesn't obtain a static latch as > knowledge-that. Know-how is maintained through physical "laws," DNA, > or social habits copied from one person to the next. > > In this formulation, knowledge-how is never and can never be out of > touch with reality. Since knowledge-how is just a particular static > form of know-how just like DNA or social customs are, it is also > always a part of reality. The Buddha resides just as comfortably in a > sentence as at the top of a mountain. Thinking can't take you closer > to or further from reality, but it can enhance your experience by > bringing new previously unrealized reality into being. > > Best, > Steve > 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/md/archives.html ___ 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/md/archives.html
