> Ron:
> Arent we
>> debating the intellectual meaning of the term as it functions within a larger
>> philosophical system of thought?
>
> Dan:
>
> No, we are not. Now, I realize lots of people want to do just that, to
> define Dynamic Quality in efforts to somehow get "closer" to it. And
> yes, we are using Dynamic Quality as an intellectual term within the
> framework of the MOQ. But that term should be kept free of all
> concepts. Better to say "it" is "not this, not that."
>
> Ron:
> Isn't using an intellectual term that has no meaning, well, meaningless?
Dan:
I didn't say the term doesn't mean anything. Within the framework of
the MOQ, Dynamic Quality points towards pre-intellectual awareness, or
direct experience.
Ron:
But that is a concept, I thought Dynamic Quality was to be kept concept free.
I thought it was better understood as "not this not that". Now you are
exercising choice
towards particular concepts that the term is pointing towards. That is certainly
not exercising "neti-neti" .
Ron:
> Why use it at all if it does not mean a thing? doesent this render it useless
> in any sort of explanation?
Dan:
You seem to want Dynamic Quality to mean something intellectually.
Only when you say, Dynamic Quality is this, and Dynamic Quality is
that, you conceptualize it. You turn "it" into some thing that has
intellectual meaning.
Ron:
Right, to say that it is pre-intellectual is to give it intellectual meaning.
You are indeed conceptualizing it. You are conceptualizing it as "not this not
that".
Or to mean nothing. Like the term zero or infinity. You want it to mean
something
too only your conceptualization does not account for art or beauty, it does not
explain why some things are better than others.
>Ron:
> That would then mean that all static patterns are a migration toward nothing.
> toward meaninglessness. That means in every instatnce Pirsig speaks of
> betterness and ethics and morality he is really pointing to nothing.
Dan:
By starting out with the premise that Dynamic Quality is meaningless,
you lead yourself astray. Within the MOQ, all static quality patterns
are seen as migrating towards freedom from any static patterns, or
Dynamic Quality.
Ron:
I'm am only startring out on the premise that the term DQ is unconceptual
based on your lead If I am being led astray...then....but
now you are associating DQ with the concept of "freedom".
along with the concept of pre-intellectual awareness, for a term
that is supposed to be kept concept free, the concepts are beginning to
accumulate. But that still doesent explain WHY static patterns migrate
toward "freedom" and preintellectual experience.
Dan:
That sense of betterness and ethics and morality is a beginning
response to Dynamic Quality. We feel "its" tug and those of us who are
open enough follow it. I think most people though tend to cling to the
static quality patterns they are familiar with and by which their
lives are determined.
Ron:
Well that is a far cry from the original position that static patterns of value
have no choice
period, end of discussion, read em an weap.
and it still doesent explain WHY most people cling to static patterns and WHY
we feel a tug towards "freedom". For freedom associated with that which is
concept free is essentially chaos. Why would one choose chaos over the familiar?
Ron:
> Why use those terms?
Dan:
To form a more complete understanding of reality.
Ron:
Well that really begs the question WHY, why endeavor to form a more complete
understanding
when DQ points to the non conceptual. Understanding requires the conceptual.
Non conceptual understanding is literally a contradiction in terms.
It seems somebody wants their cake and eat it too.
Ron:
> I see, that if we take DQ to mean nothing what so ever, or everything and
> nothing
> in particular then alot of what RMP states about reality being a moral order
> doesent
> make alot of sense. It negates the phrase "some things are better than others"
> Dan can you help me to understand this? because when I read Lila, it supports
> the concept of betterness.
Dan:
Again, keeping Dynamic Quality free of concepts doesn't translate into
"it" meaning nothing. Dynamic Quality means everything. It is
synonymous with experience. "It" is both undefined and infinitely
definable, inexhaustible. We must take care though not to label "it"
and give it intellectual meaning lest we turn "it" into merely an
intellectual concept, which, of course, it is.
Ron:
Well since you finally agree that the term actually IS an intellectual concept
and a concept is an understanding ,a meaning, an explanation,
Doesent it make sense that the most accurate explanation would include WHY?
Why freedom, why pre-intellectual awareness? why do static patterns migrate
toward those concepts of DQ? I would think in the formation of a more complete
understanding of "reality" the question of WHY would need to be addressed.
Less they are hollow rational assertions. In experience, why do we choose
freedom? why do we choose intelligability? what is that tug?
If we can't account for that then this metaphysics is a house of cards, if the
explanation is not rooted in experience then it becomes a rational explanation
and not an empirical one.
What are we basing our reasons on?
Thanks Dan, I think I am coming closer to an understanding and that is good.
=============
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
