Dan throws a smoke bomb and runs for the door. > Dan: > > We perceive Dynamic Quality all the time. And no, Platt isn't on > target. Not even in the ballpark. > [Mary Replies] Yes, we perceive Dynamic Quality all the time, and in the instant we do it is no longer Dynamic Quality - it's Static Quality.
Best, Mary .... [Dan said] > Hello everyone > > On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 7:56 PM, Mary <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Platt & Bo, > > > >> [dmb said] > >> > I mean, the analytic knife has to cut somewhere so that even the > >> DQ/sq > >> > distinction counts as a pair of opposites. > > > "Dynamic Quality is value and thus is very easily distinguished. > When one creates a word for it and tries to distinguish this word from > other words in a set of static intellectual patterns, confusion > results. > But the confusion is caused by the static patterns that seek to > subordinate Dynamic Quality to themselves." [Robert Pirsig, LILA'S > CHILD] > > Dan: > I suspect that to count "it" as a pair of opposites with static > quality is to subordinate Dynamic Quality. > > So let me ask: what exactly is a DQ/sq distinction? and how does it > count as a pair of opposites? do you have examples? > > >> > > [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. > >> > >> 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.. > >> > >> 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. > >> > >> 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." > >> > >> 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. > > > Dan: > > We perceive Dynamic Quality all the time. And no, Platt isn't on > target. Not even in the ballpark. > > Thank you, > > Dan > > > > 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. > > > > 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. 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. > > > > Best, > > Mary > > > > 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
