Greetings, Dan [Platt quoted] -- On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 6:24 AM, Platt wrote:
Good to hear from you. But, with all due respect, DQ isn't something we perceive. That's SOM. Seen from the MOQ perspective DQ is both the perceiver and the perceived prior to becoming SQ. There is no separation between you and your experience. As Erwin Schrodinger put it: "The external world and consciousness are one and the same thing."
You asked:
How could we define Dynamic Quality if we cannot perceive it?
To which Platt responded:
DQ cannot be an object of subject's "perception" because DQ comes prior to all such S/O intellectual patterns. "Quality is a direct experience independent of and prior to intellectual abstractions." (Lila, 5)
[Dan quoting Pirsig on Sun, June 20]:
"Dynamic Quality is defined constantly by everyone. Consciousness can be described is a process of defining Dynamic Quality. But once the definitions emerge, they are static patterns and no longer apply to Dynamic Quality. So one can say correctly that Dynamic Quality is both infinitely definable and undefinable because definition never exhausts it." [Robert Pirsig, LILA'S CHILD]
You both have good points, but you are using Pirsig's quotes to contradict himself. As is is often the case in eptstemological discussions, semantics get in the way of comprehension. Platt is using "perception" as synonomous with direct "experience", while Pirsig is talking about "consciously defined" experience.
Perception is defined as; "a RESULT of perceiving; observation (concept); a capacity for comprehension." Experience is defined as "the conscious perception (apprehension) of reality; direct participation in events." Clearly "perception" is somewhat ambiguous in the context of experience, which is why I prefer "sensibility" when speaking of primary or "undefined" perception.
Moving away from the dictionary, I think we can all agree that the DQ which Pirsig calls "undefined Quality" (and I call primary Value) is directly SENSED by the subject (self), whereas we only apprehend it experientially in its "defined" or "objective" form. This doesn't mean that Quality (Value) is essentially objective but, rather, that its essence is cognitively identified (associated) with things and events in the process of experience.
Existence is an individual experience. So that Quality, Goodness, and Morality are psycho-emotional "gages" used to measure the relative value of particular experiences. This bears out Protagoras's maxim that "Man is the measure of all things." (Unfortunately, I'm afraid Pirsig would say that Quality is its own standard.)
I hope this helps to resolve your dispute. And if Andre is listening, no, I will not try to explain Bo's SOL because it remains incomprehensible to me.
Nice to have you inputs again, Dan. Respectfully, Ham 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
