Hi dmb, > dmb says: > DQ isn't anything? I think DQ isn't any "thing", which is to say it is not an > entity or a substance or a metaphysical abstraction. But it's something. It > is an event, a process, an occurrence. This is another reason I like the wave > analogy. In the case of actual waves in lakes and oceans, contrary to common > sense, the water doesn't really move all that much. The wave is energy moving > through the water and the big ones can cross entire oceans. But if you could > pick out one water molecule and watch what happens to it as the wave goes by, > you'd see that the molecule moves in a small circle and ends of inches from > where it started. (I saw a videotaped illustration of this.) So anyway, it > this analogy DQ is not a isolatable thing wedged in the middle between two > other things. The analogy is all about a continuous, liquid motion. In fact, > one of James's most famous analogies is "the stream of experience". Even back > in his psychology book, before he'd written his essays in radical e > mpiricism, he had said that rivers and streams were the best analogies for > consciousness and experience. >
Are not events, processes, occurrences, water molecules things? When I picture these things in my mind they are very much static things. If I can picture it, it's not Dynamic Quality because as you say, Dynamic Quality isn't any thing. I don't deny that James sees rivers and streams as the best analogy for experience. As I said earlier, the MOQ expands on James' original pragmatism and says the best way to break up Quality is between defined and undefined quality. This truly is its strength. Every one knows what quality is, they just disagree about how to define it. That simple, very powerful statement is the very first division of the Metaphysics of Quality. > David H said to dmb: > Yes I would agree with that. So long as we agree that the Hippies are mostly > Romantics who reacted against, and some are still reacting, Classical > scientific ugliness. Anything with true quality has both a Romantic and > Classic aspect to them. Quality combines the two. > > dmb says: > Yep. And in a very similar way, we want DQ and sq to be combined, to work > together. This is another point we can see illustrated in the wave analogy, > wherein the Dynamic, living present is working hand in hand with the static > patterns of our memories and plans, our knowledge and goals. Those static > patterns are objectionable only to the extent that they fail to serve the > ongoing process of experience. If they dominate, suppress, lead you astray, > make you crash and burn or otherwise fail to guide further experience, then > you've got some re-thinking to do. It's time to get some new truths. But when > they work well, as in the case of Andre's star athlete, you don't even have > to think. And there is no time for deliberation anyway. There's a book called > "How We Decide" that's full of examples from the most recent scientific > research into this area of consciousness. (It's a popularization of the > science, very easy to read.) It opens with the same sort of example, a > professional Qu ar > terback, who makes the big bucks EXACTLY because he can make the play without > thinking. He's gotta be able to read the whole field at once and make a split > second decision and then he's gotta have an arm too, of course, but that's > not what sets the stars apart. Good throwing arms aren't all that rare, but > the ability to reliably and successfully act without thinking, under > tremendous pressure (National television) and in the face of physical danger > (bunch of 300 pound monsters want to kill you on every play). That's what > earns millions. That calm, skilled, effective concentration - even in the > center of a storm - is applicable to any number of activities. I think this > is why it makes sense to have such very, very broad definition of art as any > high quality endeavor. It need not involve paint brushes or the fine arts at > all, so that philosophers, mechanics and quarterbacks can be artists too. > This notion of getting DQ and sq to work together, I think, serves as the > basic mod e > l for any kind of artfulness, any kind of excellence. Once or twice Pirsig > refers to these as the quality of freedom and the quality of order. Without > DQ nothing can change and without sq nothing can last. To cling to DQ all by > itself is to cling to chaos, he says, and clinging to static patterns alone > is clinging to stale death. I agree, and it is only through the perfection of static quality can they be in harmony. Why do you need the wave analogy if you have experience itself? These things can work together and it is through the perfection of quality that they do. 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
