HI gang
Hello everyone On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 8:41 AM, Krimel <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Thirty spokes meet at a nave; >>> Because of the hole we may use the wheel. >>> Clay is moulded into a vessel; >>> Because of the hollow we may use the cup. >>> Walls are built around a hearth; >>> Because of the doors we may use the house. >>> Thus tools come from what exists, >>> But use from what does not. >>> >>> [http://www.vl-site.org/taoism/ttcmerel.html] >>> >>> Krimel: >>> Quality = Tao = Undefined >>> DQ = Active >>> SQ = Static >>> >>> Dan: >>> The tao is called the way but it isn't a place or a destination. The >>> tao is experience. It is constantly defined yet inexhaustible. All >>> that is, was, and will be springs forth from it and trickles back to >>> it. Dynamic Quality is synonymous with the tao. It is not active yet >>> it never rests. It is not static yet it may be defined by that very >>> nature. Dynamic Quality is not this, not that. >> >> [Krimel] >> Pirsig says Quality is synonymous with Tao. >> You are saying that a particular kind of Quality is synonymous with Tao. >> Tao has no need of adjectives or modifiers. > > Dan: > That is not my intent but yours. I see you taking Dynamic Quality and > relegating it to static quality status. But I am not saying Dynamic > Quality is a modified type of Quality. > > [Krimel] > Then what does the word "dynamic" add? > If Quality is unmodified by it, I say we drop it. Dan: Dynamic Quality is an intellectual term used within the Metaphysics of Quality to denote the undefined. Quality would work just as well, I suppose. But I think Robert Pirsig uses the term Dynamic Quality to denote the pre-intellectual "somethingness" in a way that relates to every day experience, in a way that everyone can understand. > > [Dan] > Simply, for intellectual rigor, it seems best not to compare the > Dynamic Quality of LILA with the Quality of ZMM although the terms > both point towards the same. > > For instance, if we say Quality is a combination of Dynamic Quality > and static quality, we end up with a triad, something like your > diagram above. And if we say Quality and Dynamic Quality are the same, > then, indeed, why do we have to use a modifier for Dynamic Quality > when just Quality will do? > > [Krimel] > I think both Taoism and the MoQ are safely and namelessly monistic. > But as soon as you name something, you imply its opposite. > > When beauty is abstracted > Then ugliness has been implied; > When good is abstracted > Then evil has been implied. > > http://www.vl-site.org/taoism/ttcmerel.html > > I would add: > > When DQ is abstracted > Then SQ has been implied; > When SQ is abstracted > Then DQ has been implied. > > Does this produce a trinity or is it just the inevitable result of naming > things? Dan: I'd say Dynamic Quality cannot be abstracted only implied. And yes, if you're saying Dynamic Quality is abstracted from Quality, then it seems to produce a trinity. > > [Dan] > I like Robert Pirsig's answer in the Paul Turner letter, btw. Thanks > for pointing that out. I'd forgotten where I'd read it. > > [Krimel] > Glad to help. I never understood why the intellectual level missive got so > much play and this one has been just ignored. Dan: I don't think it's been ignored so much it is a difficult topic to discuss. > > [Dan] > I recall having had similar discussions with Paul years ago that > left me feeling a bit frustrated (I sensed some frustration on > Paul's part too) over my inability to reconcile our differences. > But that's nothing new here, is it? > > [Krimel] > No, it isn't. But for me, at least, this the most important issue. > > On reading this for about the 20th time I still have issues with it perhaps > you can help. > Here is the whole thing again: > >> "When ZMM was written there was no division between Dynamic Quality >> and static quality and the term Quality then meant what is now meant >> by Dynamic Quality. ?Today I tend to think of Quality as covering both >> Dynamic and static quality. ?So far no problems have arisen with this >> confusion of terms but if they do arise I would guess that they could >> be eliminated by refraining from using the term Quality alone." >> [Pirsig to Turner, November 2005] > > I am puzzled, When he says, "When ZMM was written there was no division > between Dynamic Quality and static quality and the term Quality then meant > what is now meant by Dynamic Quality." > > It is not as though he is unfamiliar with the Tao te Ching. He says he read > it many times and made his own copy by hand. He even maps out the dualities > of ZMM like this: > > The quality that can be defined is not the Absolute Quality. Dan comments: Static quality can not be used to define Dynamic Quality. That's the key. Not this, not that. > That was what he had said. > The names that can be given it are not Absolute names. > It is the origin of heaven and earth. > When named it is the mother of all things -- . > Quality [romantic Quality] and its manifestations [classic Quality] Dan comments: Quality [Dynamic Quality] and its manifestations [static quality] > are in their nature the same. Dan comments: Their nature is experience. > It is given different names [subjects and objects] > when it becomes classically manifest. > Romantic quality and classic quality together > may be called the ``mystic.'' Dan comments: Dynamic Quality and static quality together may be called the 'mystic'. > Reaching from mystery into deeper mystery, > it is the gate to the secret of all life. > Quality is all-pervading. Dan comments: Within the framework of the MOQ, Dynamic Quality is all-prevading. >Krimel: > I think it is pretty well recognized that any duality one chooses, any > division one makes can be inserted this way. That is what Taoism is. Am I > over generalizing? Do you think these verses can or should be treated as > referring to some specific division and not to others? Dan: I think using formulations from ZMM to modify or enhance the MOQ is a mistake. I think that's what got Bo into trouble with his pet theory. >Krimel: > Or what do you make of this: > > "Quality [romantic Quality] and its manifestations [classic Quality] > are in their nature the same. > It is given different names [subjects and objects] > when it becomes classically manifest." > > Is the ZMM split between RQ/CQ then CQ is split into S/O. Are we dealing > with a monism, a dualism or a quartette or a party of five? > > Does this mean the SOM never applied to the Romantics? Dan: The MOQ wasn't developed in ZMM. Quality was left undefined. In LILA, Robert Pirsig makes it clear that he has abandoned the romantic/classic split in favor of something better -- the Metaphysics of Quality. So while ZMM is a great work, LILA is the more important to understanding the MOQ. Again, I think it is problematical to use the earlier book to explain the later one. >Krimel: > I think I am ok with this part: > "Today I tend to think of Quality as covering both Dynamic and static > quality." > > I could read that as Quality is described through its two aspects. Which is > what I have been insisting. The split in Lila is certainly cleaner than the > spit in ZMM. Dan: I think it's okay to think of Quality as covering Dynamic and static quality as long as it's understood that DQ and sq are not pairs of opposites in the traditional sense. But I can also see how it could lead to confusion. That's why I cautioned dmb on using Dynamic Quality/static quality as pairs of opposites, even in a metaphysical system. >Krimel: > I do not agree at all that "So far no problems have arisen..." And I can't > imagine that anyone reading this forum could think that either. Dan: Problems are opportunities for improvement. I'd have to go back and review the archives but right off hand I don't recall any problems with Quality vs Dynamic Quality. As I said in a previous post, I do recall some discussions with Paul Turner on this subject that weren't resolved to my satisfation but I'd had to go back and refresh my memory before commenting more. >Krimel: > What do you make of eliminating problems by "refraining from using the term > Quality alone." Dan: I think it is a cautionary statement on using ZMM as a tool for understanding the MOQ. Krimel: Maybe I am being too literal here. Perhaps this just means > that whenever discussing some aspect of Quality, the modifiers should be > applied for clarity. There is Quality and its two aspects but we should be > specific about which aspects we mean. Dan: Right. We're seeking greater intellectual clarity by carefully defining our terms. > > Dan: > Quality is the central term in the Metaphysics of Quality. Whenever I > start to drift, I find it best to come back to center. I'm not saying > it NEEDS to be replaced but again, it seems best for intellectual > rigor. My thoughts on this seem to continually evolve, however. > > [Krimel] > I completely agree. Quality IS the central term of the MoQ. Dan: Right. >Krimel: > I have been thinking about the Tao filtered through Pirsig and Pirsig > filtered through the Tao for 35 years now. I don't want to sound rigid or > closed minded and I do see them differently at different times; but I don't > think my thoughts on them have changed all that much. I like to think this > is because the metaphysics of the Tao which unpins the MoQ, Zen and even > modern physics really works, it has for me. These ideas have been tested > across time and culture for 2500 years and have not been found lacking. Dan: I find my thoughts continually evolve as experience evolves. I have more to draw on. Things that seemed right and important somehow shift into nonsensical trivia that has no anchor other than in thoughts long expired. It is as if I am driving down a deserted nameless road and suddenly I have no idea where I am, where I am going, or where I've been. I search for signs. They're all in a foreign language that seems familar yet l can't quite understand. Still, I take comfort that the signs (at least) mean someone has come this way before. >Krimel: > I think the point of a metaphysics is to find relationships that apply in > any and all situations. Taoism does this by giving us a way to resolve all > binary oppositions. Is Pirsig really trying to identify THE specific pair of > opposites and all of our arguments are over which spilt is THE split? Dan: No I don't think so. All binary oppositions, pairs of opposites, are static quality patterns of value. Patterns of value share an evolutionary history. It is evolution that implies Dynamic Quality, an undefined drive towards what's better. The tao is much the same... it resolves binary oppositions while implying an undefined drive behind them... the way. Thanks for the thoughts, Dan Breathtaking Quality-conversation, this will make my day , today. love the depth of it , but also the part about the road signs becoming meaningless. the conversation made me feel like i'v been missing you guys in the past , but i'm only now aware of it , after i discovered this forum, and the Quali-people. You rock , Dan, and Krimel rocks too in expiriencing expirience. Adrie 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
