Hi Mark, Pirsig identifies two main opponents of the MOQ in the first part of Lila. The Mystics [Of which you are a part Mark] and the logical positivists.
To the Mystics he writes and I paraphrase.. "Of the two kinds of hostility to metaphysics he considered the mystics more formidable. Mystics will tell you that once you have opened the door to metaphysics you can say good-bye to any genuine understanding of reality. Quality doesn't have to be defined.. You understand it without definition, ahead of definition.. Writing a metaphysics is, in the strictest mystic sense, a degenerate activity. But.. a ruthless, doctrinaire avoidance of degeneracy is degeneracy of another sort. That's the degeneracy fanatics are made of.. Objections to pollution are a form of pollution. The only person who doesn't pollute the mystic reality of the world with fixed metaphysical meanings is a person who hasn't yet been born = and to whose birth no thought has been given." The MOQ is more than a mystical statement. The MOQ is not Zen. Ultimately the MOQ agrees with you. It says that you cannot define something, but as Pirsig says above - there is not a person alive who hasn't defined something. Good is a noun. So let's be the best people we can. Including get the best understanding of the MOQ we can... Good is a noun. The MOQ actually explains how the universe, including yours, mine and everyone else's life, works. We all use words based on how good they are at describing things. For instance what is it about 'mindfulness' that makes it work? What does it mean to not be mindful? When you're not mindful I think that means you're not 'just doing' what you're doing. Your mind is 'somewhere else'. What to be mindful means, in practice, is to bring your mind and attention back to what your doing and to 'just do it'. And if you do this over and over, the more 'in the moment' you are, and eventually, your mind drops away and you can be said to have 'become' the thing which you are doing. It is through the perfection of this mindful practice that one is said to be enlightened. It is through this understanding of static quality. Through the acceptance of it - that it exists, that we are able to deal with it honestly and the best we can and ultimately, through perfecting that quality, reveal the Dynamic Quality that was there all along.. > [Mark] > I think you are getting all caught up with the notion of definitions. > Pirsig does his best to explain Quality. It is not in the objects > themselves but in how they are expressed. Such expression is akin to > interaction. Interaction is not the same as two objects interacting. > Undefinable does not mean we cannot talk about it, it only means that > words do not suffice to encapsulate it. Sure we can say what is and > what is not Dynamic Quality, I don't see why you have such a problem > with this. But no, we cannot fit it into a box, that is what is meant > by undefinable. We sense examples of Dynamic Quality all around us, > you are just getting caught up in the words. God is also undefinable, > yet people talk about it. For many, to be in the presence of God is > exactly the same feeling as being in the presence of Quality. I am > not getting religious, I am just trying to analogize a sentiment. It > is not a thing, it is a dynamic relationship. > > If what you are looking for is a set of instructions, then you are out > of luck. Dynamic Quality comes through self-realization, it is ones > personal relationship with ones existence. It is undefinable, it just > is. One cannot learn what dynamic quality is by reading a bunch of > books. It is beyond learning, it is participating. > > The whole purpose of dividing up Quality the way that Pirsig does, is > to convey the impression he has of Quality. If you take what Pirsig > states literally, then you will always miss the point. As you know, > he could have described Quality in a hundred different ways, such is > the power of rhetoric. So, don't get too hung up on what words mean > exactly, listen to the dialogue. What we try to do here is find a > common ground. This is not done through using the same words, but > through conveying the same thing. > > Let us use art as an example, since you asked. Painting is dynamic, > art is static (an analogy of course). You get it? It is not that > complicated, it is all laid out in Lila. Pirsig is simply trying to > explain that the expression of things can be divided into two (as a > rhetorical analogy for conveyance of sentiment only, not literally). > On one side there is the creator, on the other side is the created > (again, another analogy so don't try to pick the words apart, that > will get you nowhere). We don't have to subscribe to any mystical > notion like something we cannot conceive of. As Pirsig states, > everybody knows what Quality is. As soon as you resort to putting it > into boxes, you get farther and farther away from what you know it is. > Pirsig cautions on this. > > I the word dynamic muddies up the water, then by all means use a > different word. It doesn't matter, they are all just words. Express > it in the way you see it, maybe a light will come on in a reader's > head. Don't mistake the words for what they are intended to > represent. I won't. The MOQ is good at reminding us what Dynamic Quality isn't. It's also good at pointing the way towards it - through the perfection of static quality. The MOQ encapsulates both the Mystic view and the Logical Positivist view into one Metaphysical system. (My response here is to both of your previous two posts) Thanks Mark, -David. 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
