Hi Ham, On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 10:46 PM, Ham Priday <[email protected]> wrote: >
> > Not to criticize the MoQ as a concept but in the interest of clarity, I > think David has a valid point. The terms "static" and "dynamic" are nothing > more than labels intended to distinguish two modes of reality--empirical > (experiential) and metaphysical (ultimate). [Mark] Don't worry, it is not possible to criticize the MoQ, all you can criticize is your understanding of it. Your point on labels is a good one. Of course these are not the only labels, but they are just the ones that Pirsig chooses. He makes it clear what he means by these. A number of labels would do, choose whichever one you want that has meaning to you. You choose experiential and ultimate. I understand experiential, but ultimate is not quite clear. Could you explain that one? Give me an example of what you consider to be ultimate reality. > > As I look again at Pirsig's block diagram (SODV paper), I can almost > envision the author's thought process. Having already decided to call > metaphysical reality "Dynamic Quality", he now had to show how the > experienced patterns related to the dynamic flow. For this he needed an > antonym for "dynamic", such as "stationary" or "fixed". Whether it was its > association with electromotive force or for some other reason, he chose > "static". In the paragraph immediately preceding the diagram he states: > "Dynamic Quality is a stream of quality events going on and on forever, > always at the cutting edge of the present. But in the wake of this cutting > edge are static patterns of value. These are memories, customs, and patterns > of nature." [Mark] As you know, Quality is the expression of things, such as "that has high quality". Pirsig has chosen to divide these up to help us understand what he is talking about. He does this begrudgingly but with intent. If you view dynamic as the present moment, which is also undefinable, this may help. This is the purpose of Zen as I understand it. You may be presenting his thought process, I don't know. But yes, many things are best explained in a Yin Yang kind of way. This is why Taoism is successful in creating understanding. He is not necessarily saying that this is the way it is, he is showing a way in which it can be understood. > > The terms stuck because they were effective in identifying the divisions of > Quality as diagrammed by the author. Unfortunately, they proved less > effective--even confusing--when applied to everyday examples of static > patterns, such as works of art or music, both of which.have dynamic aspects. > One might just as logically call experienced events "dynamic" and the > Quality from which they are derived "static". But I suspect the label > Dynamic Quality had more romantic appeal to Pirsig's novelist instincts. [Mark] Yes, it is obviously confusing. The awareness that Pirsig has cannot be imparted in a simple manner. When he states something, everybody seems to be looking at the words he uses, rather than what he is saying. Typically the best (and some say the only) way to grasp these things is to have a teacher that one trusts implicitly, a Master if you will. It is not easy conveying an awareness. I think dynamic is pretty cool, and imparts meaning to me, I like movement. It coincides with my awareness, but that is just me. > > As an essentialist, of course, I see the terminology as a fundamental > misconception of metaphysical reality. The problem I have with "Dynamic > Quality" is that it is "unfinished" -- that it continues indefinitely along > some cosmic path to "betterness" which we associate with evolution. And it > straps Quality to the space/time dimensions of a universe in process. I > think this is what Mark was getting at when he suggested that Evolution > shouldn't be used to connote Quality. [Mark] This is similar to the concept of infinity. This seems to trouble many people. For example, if an infinite amount of time had to elapse before we are here, then how is it possible that we are here? In terms of evolution, my understanding of such a concept has nothing to do with what Quality is. This is obviously not a problem for others, which is fine. I am told that I am wrong to see it this way, but such is the intrusion of dogma into MoQ. Words, words, words. > > Beginnings and endings are a phenomenon of the "cause-and-effect" world > where meaning is found in the existential (alpha to omega) progression > between these two boundaries. But there is no metaphysical reason to assume > that the modus operandi of the ultimate source is process in time. The > spiritual cultures that predated philosophy must have understood this, as > religious people have traditionally characterized their God as "eternal" and > "unchanging'. [Mark] Yes, and as you know, the mystic often describes such an experience as being outside of time. Living completely in the present is also outside of time. Unfortunately, the world wouldn't work to well (or at least as it does), if everybody did this. This is only for those who find it meaningful. Often I too have difficulty with Pirsig's linearity and positive direction. Often he uses it to justify his social and intellectual beliefs. But such digressions do not take away from the heart of what he is saying. Often I find that people with completely different politics than I have still have something to say that is profound. When one tries to use MoQ to directly explain the way things are in a subject object oriented world, there are bound to be miscommunications, overlaid with personal opinions. Such examples are really trivial to the message. > > But if you are persuaded that ultimate Quality streams to betterness in its > creation of lingering patterns, who am I to fault this belief? Inasmuch as > the principles of metaphysics are incapable of empirical verification, one > analogy will be regarded as good as another. [Mark] In my opinion, an analogy is good if it works for you. Ultimately, they are all the same thing, that is the brain entertaining itself and creating things. This is what is wonderful. We are free to do such a thing. > Thanks Ham, I always find you to be a voice of reason. > Cheers, Mark >> > 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
