Thanks, Marsha! You've said that to me before and I didn't acknowledge it - because I didn't know how. Aw shucks :) Really glad to know I'm not laboring alone. ;)
Mary > > 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 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
