All and no-mind,
Seems to me DQ and sq are not separate and independent, but mutually interdependent. But may I have misinterpreted... Quality(unpatterned experience/patterned experience) Marsha On Jun 19, 2010, at 8:34 PM, Mary wrote: > Hi Andre and everymind, ;) > >> >> Mary to virtually everybody (and mind): >> >> I suppose, but I have the uneasy feeling we aren't talking about quite >> the >> same thing. >> >> Andre: >> Mary, this is an interesting post you planted and touches on some >> things >> I have been wondering about lately. It is getting late here at the >> moment but still want to give you an initial reaction and share some >> ideas. >> I am beginning to think we are not talking about the same thing. As >> mentioned to Platt, we are talking 'past' eachother. >> >> Mary: >> >> 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. >> >> Andre: >> This is where I got uneasy feelings. You are immediately pre-supposing >> that the 'end result' will be a book...yet to be written. >> > [Mary replies] > I'm presupposing that when DQ is experienced it will be as SQ. > >> Mary: >> 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? >> >> Andre: >> This continued the uneasy feeling. You are pre-determining something >> that has yet to be determined. You have already applied the knife. >> > [Mary replies] > Quality is Quality is Quality. DQ could be likened to SQ that hasn't been > experienced yet. > >> Mary: >> 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. >> >> Andre: >> This is unfortunate Bodvar terminology (sorry Mary but I do not like >> it). It is misleading as it seems to completely miss the next point you >> are making:'He's trying to get us to take a grip on how we handle the >> experience, the SQ. >> >> No! The experience IS DQ it is pre- intellectual, pre-language. >> >> The 'experience of SQ is inorganic/organic/social and intellectual >> patterns of value. To be clear: No DQ. >> > [Mary replies] > Right. All experience is SQ. > >> Mary: >> And next comes the confusion: If there is a difference between DQ and >> SQ what do you think it is? >> And you continue:Well, what does that mean, especially when he says >> that all is Quality, all is Value, >> all is Morals? >> >> 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. >> >> Andre: >> >> This is why it caught my interest Mary and I think that there is a >> difference...and I really hope that dmb and Anthony can chime in here >> as well. (Anthony's PhD contains 2 chapters: one on Pirsig's idea about >> Quality and one on Pirsig's ideas about Value...I cannot access them at >> the moment but this alone seems to suggest a difference). >> > [Mary replies] > If Ant wrote chapters explaining the difference between Quality and Value > then I'm disappointed. There is no difference between Value and Quality > other than the connotations those words may have for English speakers who > don't understand the MoQ. I think the point is that Value and Quality and > Morals are expanded in meaning by Pirsig so that wherever you see one word > you can take the flavor of all the others, roll them all together and know > he's talking about a concept that's much bigger than the standard definition > of any one. > > Value is Morality. Quality is Value. Quality is Valu(able) is Moral. All > the subtle shades of meaning each term normally has is expanded by seeing > that they all represent the same thing. > >> Here is my take: the 'split' you talk about further in your post, the >> 'stuff you take away' from DQ happens pre-intellectually, pre-language. >> This is adding to the pile of sand you have already scooped up from the >> endless beach. >> >> The split occurs through (e)valuations (hence quality)of abstracting >> those 'bits' of experience that 'fit' our boxcars...that fit our own >> train which of course is mediated through pre-existing analogies of >> inorganic, organic, social and intellectual pattens of value. >> >> Mary: >> You don't have any choice about the split between Dynamic and Static. >> >> Andre: >> As Dan suggests, you cannot not have a choice about this. This is the >> heart of the confusion, and I will reiterate dmb's words again: >> Bodvar's interpretation leads you to such nonsense.It leads to to a no- >> win, no choice situation. Actually, come to think of it, it makes you >> quite dead! (What makes you get out of bed in the morning?) >> > [Mary replies] > Not having a choice about DQ is not a negative thing. I'm just saying you > have no control over it. If you're lucky enough to get 'struck' by DQ, then > that's great, but you can't conjure it up on demand or pick and choose what > you're going to get. > >> Mary: >> You can't make a lot of decisions about the unknown, can you? >> >> Andre: >> "Now it comes! Because Quality is the GENERATOR of the mythos. That's >> it. That's what he meant when he said, 'Quality is the continuing >> stimulus which causes us to create the world in which we live. All of >> it. Every last bit of it.' ...Men invent RESPONSES to Quality, and >> among these responses is an understanding of what they themselves are. >> You know something and then the Quality stimulus hits and then you try >> to define the Quality stimulus, but to define it all you've go to work >> with is what you know. So your definition is made up of what you know. >> It's an analogue to what you already know. It HAS to be. It can't be >> anything else. And the mythos grows this way. By analogies to what is >> known before. The mythos is a building of analogues upon analogues. >> These fill the boxcars of the train of consciousness." (ZAMM, page >> 351, near the end of chapter 28. Emphasis is Pirsig's) (thanks dmb!) >> > [Mary replies] > Exactly! DQ is the generator of SQ and from our initial perception of SQ > the responses follow. You can choose a subject-object split response for > the SQ you experience or you can see it as patterns of value or maybe > something else entirely, but I don't know what a third alternative might be. > Yeah, Quality is the generator of the mythos, the ethos, the logos, and the > pathos. It's the generator of everything. > >> Mary: >> 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? >> >> Andre: >> Yes, this depends on what cultural perspective you use. The 'West' >> would use the former. >> >> Mary: >> 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. >> >> Andre: >> He had no choice in the sense that he did not like himself at all... >> (as you put it in another post... steeped in SOM). He saw the sorry >> state the world is in and the sorry state that he was in and decided to >> do something about it.(because there was more to his (read the human!) >> experience of the world than SOM provided/recognised). >> > [Mary replies] > Yeah, that's what I see too. > >> Mary: >> 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? >> >> Andre: >> No-thing. Quality, The Tao,The Formless, Emptyness (within which there >> is great working) >> > [Mary replies] > You seem to have a better understanding of how to describe DQ than I do. I > try to stay away from describing or defining it myself. The only thing I > can say anything about is that which I have experienced - SQ. After > thinking about it logically for a while, I'm willing to take DQ on faith > because even though it is undefined and unknowable I can logically work out > how it must exist. There would be no 'change', no SQ could get created > without it. > >> Mary: >> ...I'm getting tired and that discussion will have to be for another >> day. >> >> Andre: >> Same here Mary. I enjoyed responding to this post. Interested to hear >> your comments...and some of the other's I requested. This is very >> important. >> > [Mary replies] > Enjoyed your post too. Thanks for talking to me about this. > > 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
