Hello everyone On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 8:22 AM, X Acto <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> 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" .
Dan: I said the term Dynamic Quality POINTS TOWARDS. And yes, Dynamic Quality as used in the MOQ is a static intellectual term. What else can it be? > > 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. Dan: We are using the finger of static quality to point at the moon of Dynamic Quality. You are mistaking the two. > >>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: If you think about it carefully, you'll see all the terms RMP uses to describe Dynamic Quality are actually what it is not. "It" is associated with freedom from all static quality patterns, or not this, not that. "It" is the awareness before we intellectualize the world, again, not this, not that. "Its" only percieved good is freedom from static quality. Static quality pattern do what they have to do but they prefer freedom from all patterns. > > 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. Dan: I think you might need to work on your reading skills, Ron. Please note: by which their lives are determined. You are seeing what you want to see. Not what is really there. Ron: > 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? Dan: Indeed. And that is why you seem intellectually stuck at the moment. > > 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. Dan: Not within the framework of the MOQ. Remember, there are five moral codes... and Dynamic morality, or loosely called the code of art, is what we are talking about when we say things like non-conceptual understanding or pre-intellectual awareness. > > > 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? Dan: You seem to have been misreading me all along, Ron. I just had a discussion with Craig over this same issue which ended with Craig informing me I am an idiot. I take it you didn't bother to read it. I am not finally agreeing to anything. I've said the term is an intellectual concept all along! Can you see why I grow so frustrated at times? >Ron: > Why freedom, why pre-intellectual awareness? why do static patterns migrate > toward those concepts of DQ? Dan: Again, you are confusing the moon with the finger pointing towards the moon. Static patterns do not migrate towards concepts of anything. They migrate towards Dynamic Quality, which is free of any concept. And I realize this is confusing, but it is important to see. Ron: 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? Dan: We don't actually choose freedom. You could say rather that freedom chooses us. We do not possess Quality. It possesses us. Ron: > 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. Dan: The MOQ starts with experience. How can it not be rooted in it? You are looking for a rational explanation, a way to describe Dynamic Quality. And I am telling you that Dynamic Quality must be kept free of concepts, even though it is a static intellectual term. Again, I realize that it seems contradictory, but only from a rational, intellectual side. >Ron: > What are we basing our reasons on? Dan: Reasons for what? If you mean reasoning, we are basing our reasoning on the framework of the MOQ and how it explains reality in a better way than say, a substance-based metaphysics. >Ron: > Thanks Dan, I think I am coming closer to an understanding and that is good. Dan: You're welcome, Ron. And forgive me if I get a little short at times. Thank you, Dan 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
