Hello everyone On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 8:17 AM, X Acto <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi Steve, > >> Ron: >> DQ can also be explained as the Good, which is no-thing/all-things and >> express a motivating factor as to why aesthetic preference composes all >> experience. >> Linking it to the concept of a reality/experience of moral values. >> >> I think that is missed in a purely "not this/not that" explanation which to >> myself >> leans to a more relativistic version of DQ. >> >> It's what the majority of the argument has been about, the idea of DQ being >> a place holder >> for the indefinable AND an explanation of the Good and the beautiful. >> >> Its why DQ is morally superior to SQ (by way of static explanation.) >> Lending explanatory meaning to term rather than a place holder for >> nothing-ness. > > Steve: > I think calling DQ the Good is problematic given the hot stove > scenario for explaining it as negative value in that case. > > Likewise, Pirsig says of DQ: "Its only perceived good is freedom and > its only perceived evil is static quality itself-any pattern of > one-sided fixed values that tries to contain and kill the ongoing free > force of life." > > > Yet, he also talks about it as "betterness" of the undefined sort > which supports your equation: > > "So what Phædrus was saying was that not just life, but everything, is an > ethical activity. It is nothing else. When inorganic patterns of reality > create life the Metaphysics of Quality postulates that they've done so > because it's "better" and that this definition of "betterness"-this > beginning response to Dynamic Quality-is an elementary unit of ethics upon > which all right and wrong can be based." > > > ...but he later backs off from such statements in LC: > > > RMP: > Yes, my statement that Dynamic Quality is always affirmative was not a > wise statement. > > Ron: > When the negative face of Quality, emerges as conflicting types of > Good it most certainly is a wise statement. Therefore by the above > statement, when inorganic patterns begin to radically change their preferences > (in the case of the hot stove) they do so because it's better which conflicts > with > the good of organic patterns . DQ must be formulated as the elementary unit > of ethics or else > the whole four level heirarchy is just garbage as far as explanation. > > And why would he simply throw that out over the conception that DQ is always > affirmative? the problem is that he used the term without alot of explanation > which was unwise > because it creates confusion among those less studied in the matter.
Dan: I think Steve is using the quote from LC out of context... it is better to look at the larger exchange: DG: "In my reading of William James, I noticed he often used the term “agreement” in a similar fashion to how you’re using the terms “approval” and “affirmative” so I took the time to look up each root word in the Practical Standard Dictionary: Approve: to regard as worthy, proper, or right; commend; sanction; ratify; confirm. Affirm: to declare or state positively; make (a statement) and maintain (it) to be true; maintain; assert; aver. "Agree: to come into or be in harmony; be of one mind; concur. When you say Dynamic Quality is always affirmative, at first I took it to mean that DQ is always positive. By comparing all three terms, however, I sense a common thread of evaluation leading to confirmation, which is neither positive nor negative. Those terms come later, after further intellectualization. Is that your thinking too?" RMP: "Yes, my statement that Dynamic Quality is always affirmative was not a wise statement, since it constitutes a limitation or partial definition of Dynamic Quality. Whenever one talks about Dynamic Quality someone else can take whatever is said and make a static pattern out of it and then dialectically oppose that pattern. The best answer to the question, “What is Dynamic Quality?” is the ancient Vedic one——“Not this, not that.” Dan comments: Robert Pirsig is not backtracking... he is expanding on his premise that Dynamic Quality is synonymous with experience. Experience begins as the unguarded moment and static quality evaluations arise from there... evaluations of positive and negative, good and evil, right and wrong. That's why we have to take such care in talking about Dynamic Quality. Whatever we say about it is a static quality pattern and can be opposed. That is the source of much confusion, in my opinion. 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
