Hi dmb, > David Harding said to dmb: > If Dynamic Quality truly is prior to conceptualizations and definitions isn't > 'flux of life' a definition and so not Dynamic Quality? > > dmb says: > I don't think "the immediate flux of life" counts a definition. DQ can't be > defined but saying so does not define it. I think that saying so does define it. 'Black is not white'. Is a definition of black. > That claim only tells you what DQ is not. To say DQ is pre-conceptual or > pre-verbal is just part of explaining WHY it can't be defined. Yes and these are still definitions. All definitions explain WHY something is the way it is.
> Harding also said: > The reason why I've brought up this distinction is because it seems to me > that the term dynamic is being constantly confused with something static. > Movement is something which is very clearly defined. Therefore, in order to > avoid all of those strange Zen intellectual paradoxes, people are taking the > easy route and saying - 'Dynamic Quality is movement quality' - and sticking > to their static quality. > > dmb says: > I agree. Pistons going up and down is not even close to Pirsig's notion of > "Dynamic". Motion is a very precisely defined physical and mechanical > process. Dynamic Quality is not a thing that can be at rest nor does it have > velocity. I agree. > It is experience itself, an ongoing stream of continuous experience. I disagree. When I picture a stream of anything I imagine something very defined. Dynamic Quality is not any thing. Including concepts that someone can picture. > > Harding said: > That's why it's best to say when someone asks "What is Dynamic Quality?" "Not > this, Not that." > > > dmb says: > I don't see how that answer could help anyone. It doesn't tell you anything > at all. It's not even clear what is being negated. What is "this"? And what > is "that"? It seems to me dmb, that you're trying to understand Dynamic Quality and this isn't something that you can do. Dynamic Quality is not a concept. > DQ cannot be defined, Pirsig says, not because it's so mysterious but because > it's so simple and direct. It's right under your nose all the time. It's what > you know ahead of definitions. I think that little double negation is about > taking the middle way through some specific dilemma wherein "this" and "that" > are two rival options that are pretty well defined but people throw it around > like it's the answer by which we can evade any hard question. Asking what is this and what is that, is looking at the phrase intellectually. The phrase is actually pointing out that you cannot understand it intellectually. It's something you have to experience. It's basically saying that Dynamic Quality cannot be defined. Even this paragraph is ultimately a definition of Dynamic Quality and so not it. > Not saying that is your intention here, David, but I would point out that > Pirsig does talk about pure Quality or DQ throughout both books and his > explanations and descriptions go a helluva lot further than that little > phrase ever could. > If you like, here is a Pirsig quote where he describe this little phrase: "The ancient vedic description of Dynamic Quality, although they didn't call it that, was not this, not that. That's all they would say. Not this, not that. And they would say if you want to experience Dynamic Quality you're not going to get it in words. Words are intellectual static quality and they can't do it if you want to see Dynamic Quality. If you're a poet and you want to see the Dynamic Quality of bamboo's they would say go out all night and sit amongst the bamboo's until you are one and then write who you are." - Pirsig - MOQ at Oxford. It's through the perfection of static patterns that we can experience Dynamic Quality. See? 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
