Mary, this is a wonderful post! - marsha
On Jun 17, 2010, at 10:26 PM, Mary wrote: > Hi DMB, Platt, Bo, > >> [dmb had said] >>>>> I mean, the analytic knife has to cut somewhere so that even the >>>>> DQ/sq distinction counts as a pair of opposites. >> > [Mary Replies] > > I suppose, but I have the uneasy feeling we aren't talking about quite the > same thing. Pirsig makes a distinction between Static and Dynamic Quality > yet maintaining that both are still Quality. Sort of like the difference > you might make between a book on the shelf and one yet to be written. If > you are discussing the two, you would still call both of them books even > though one can be experienced and one cannot. One is defined and knowable > and one is not. How else would you refer to a book that's yet to be written > but as a book, since if it ever is realized it will be as, well, a book? > > When he's discussing the analytical knife, this DQ/SQ split isn't what he's > talking about. We never see that split. All we see is the static fallout, > the SQ. He's trying to get us to take a grip on how we handle the > experience, the SQ. This is the cut he is talking about through most of ZMM > because it's this cut that has the most immediate effect on our lives. > > If there is a difference between DQ and SQ what do you think it is? The > only clue Pirsig gives about the question is to say that one is experienced > and the other is not. One can be defined and the other cannot. Well, what > does that mean, especially when he says that all is Quality, all is Value, > all is Morals? It simply means there is no difference. Quality is the same > whether you put an "S" in front of it or a "D". Whether you can define it > or not. Whether you experience it or not. There is no split. The only > split would be an artificial one you might make in your head. > > But the analytic knife looms large in his thoughts. It is a concept with a > purpose. It has legs. You don't have any choice about the split between > Dynamic and Static. That one is made for you. How could it be otherwise? > The only split possible there is between the known and the unknown. No > choice really. You can't make a lot of decisions about the unknown, can > you? So what's the split all about? Why does he harp on it so? > > If you don't get a chance at the first cut, where is your first opportunity > after that? Well, once you've experienced Quality, then you get to make > some choices for the first time. You could follow Pirsig and say, "that was > an experience of Quality", but we know most people don't automatically do > that. We do know that they say things like, "I just experienced an event, > or an object, or a thought." They assume they are an independent entity > unto themselves and they had an objective experience that happened to > _them_. What Pirsig takes great pains to point out is that the _them_ that > had the experience is a fiction. He says there is no _them_ different in > kind from the experience itself. That is the fallacy. The first cut we > make is based on bad assumptions, invalid assumptions about "who" we are, > "where" we are, and "what's" going on. From that point onward, every > question we ask is a bad question and every derivative assumption we make is > based on false premises. So it is that the choice you make about that first > cut of experience can lead you closer to Quality or farther from it. > > But if we can't know anything about DQ, if it's always "unknowable", what's > the use of it? Why is it important to Pirsig that there be Dynamic and > Static Quality? Why did he go to such lengths to incorporate DQ into his > metaphysics if he couldn't even define it? Makes him sound like a crackpot > or a mystic, right? > > He did it because he had no choice. You can't have Static Quality without > Dynamic Quality to bring it into existence. To formulate his metaphysics he > had to work backward, rejecting one assumption at a time. He had to peel > the onion back until finally he reached the point where there was nothing > left. Well, maybe that's a bad analogy? I couldn't tell you what's at the > center of an onion. I've peeled and cut up a million of them, but never > paid attention. Maybe there is a "seed" or something at the center of an > onion? I don't know, but for purposes of our discussion, let's say there > isn't. Let's say you can stand in your kitchen, if you are so inclined, and > spend a whole day carefully peeling one layer at a time off an onion until > it isn't an onion anymore. It isn't anything. Your hand is empty. Without > Dynamic Quality, that's what the MoQ would be like. Without Dynamic > Quality, where would Static Quality come from? > > Without Dynamic Quality, how would Static Quality be any different from > objective reality? Wouldn't Static Quality itself represent the fundamental > objective reality of the world then? You bet. Nothing else it could be. > Without Dynamic Quality, the "world as we know it" - where I want you to pay > special attention to the idea of "we" and "know" and "it", would be > absolutely all there is. Static "things", "ideas", and "individuals" would > be indeed the primary empirical reality. I would not argue with you, > either. And if you told me that this thing has Quality but that thing > doesn't, who am I to disagree? What would give me any moral authority to > say otherwise? Who would care what I say anyway, since we're all equal? My > opinion is no better than yours, and both are just opinions, so I guess we > could argue until eternity. > > But that's not all. What gets lost in all this is that Pirsig very > carefully chose three different words to represent the same concept. Three > words that in normal usage are not even interchangeable. Quality, Values, > and Morals are all the same exact thing for Pirsig. There is a reason. He > did not choose these words carelessly. But I'm getting tired and that > discussion will have to be for another day. Maybe you'd like to weigh in? > > Best, > Mary > >> [Bo said] >>>> The great metaphysical revolution took place when everything became >>>> Quality. Thus the DQ/SQ division is not anything like the S/O split >>>> (mind you: the analytical knife always cuts S/O) but an internal >>>> arrangement - the static levels are value levels - not like the S >>>> and O that are worlds apart. >> >> [Platt said] >>>> If I understand correctly, you're saying that dualistic thinking >>>> based on divisions and "cuts" is SOM. The MOQ revolution is the >>>> transcendence of dualistic thinking by value understanding, not >>>> another SOM (intellectual) theory. >> >> At least "the knife" that P. speaks of in ZAMM was cutting S/O-ishly, >> i.e. intellectually, while intelligence in MOQ's service will cut >> DQ/SQ- >> ishly. It may be dualistic, but without SOM's bleak and paradox- >> inducing consequences. >> >>>> In other words, the MOQ perspective reveals a world not of >> observers >>>> and observed as seen from the dualistic viewpoint, but a world of >>>> values.. >> >> Exactly. >> >>>> In the value world, distinctions are made on a vertical/horizontal >>>> axis whereby the vertical axis is the evolutionary value hierarchy >>>> and the horizontal axis is a high-low value spectrum. In addition, >>>> there's a creative force of dynamic value. >> >> Sounds good. Regarding the vertical (diagram) I have maintained it >> regarding the MOQ. No "Reality=Quality" box that splits into DQ and >> SQ, merely "DQ " on top and "SQ" (connected with a line) under it, the >> latter may be internally and horizontally partitioned. >> >>>> In this way, the MOQ releases us from an illusory dualistic reality >>>> to a value- experience reality where one does not automatically see >>>> and say, "That's a small dog, or a brown and white dog, or a mixed >>>> breed dog," but "That's a good dog," or better yet, simply "Ah, >> so." >> >> Well, when on "the high metaphysical ground" this is may be so, but >> when back in the static realm - with intellect our base camp - we may >> speak/think like we used to, but the Q-knowledge remains. >> >>>> Am I on target? >> >> [Mary Replies] >>> I think you are, Platt. The so-called Dq/Sq split is not really a >>> split for us at all since we cannot perceive DQ. In the instant we >> do >>> it has already become SQ, so there is no perceived split and no >> choice >>> has been made. It just is. The analytical knife comes into play >>> after the SQ has been perceived, at which point Pirsig is saying that >>> the S/O split we choose to make is just that - a division we have >>> chosen. He tries to persuade us that there is another choice - >>> perception as patterns of value. >> >> Even if DQ is ephemeral the DQ/SQ is the matrix when "on the high >> ground", when back on the plains however our analysis may well be >> intellectual (S/O-ish) but no longer oppressed by SOM's metaphysical >> implications. >> >> Hope we - "the marvelous few" - agree here ;-) >> >>> The S/O split devalues Quality, placing recognition of Quality as a >>> lower form of perception than the recognition of the Subjects and >>> Objects as entities in and of themselves. >> >> Right SOM places qualities within the subjective realm and as such of >> secondary, dubious existence. Objectivity is its one sure criterion. >> >>> Pirsig points out that this is wrong, and has lead to our fundamental >>> confusion on the whole subject. When what is Quality is demoted to a >>> subjective attribute then morals are relative, debatable, and no >>> consistent 'opinion' can be hoped for. When morals and value are >>> demoted to the status of attribute, then the invention of the >>> thermonuclear bomb had only 'relative' moral implications. There was >>> never a good reason not to do it. If all the world is subjects and >>> objects, then the discovery of any new 'object' is always "the good" >>> since we live in a world where nothing has higher status than >> subjects >>> contemplating objects. That's all there is. It is only after the >> fact >>> that we could debate the moral value of doing science in that >>> direction, and this debate was weak from the start since it could >> only >>> deal with a subjective, relative morality, not a universal one. >> >> Wow! Quite "chautauqua" ;-) >> >> >> Bodvar >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 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 ___ 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
