Mary, Well, what I mean is that you seem to write what is on my mind in the most beautiful prose, while I seem unable to put together a coherent sentence, so I write my appreciation.
Marsha On Jun 18, 2010, at 8:20 AM, Mary wrote: > 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 ___ 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
