Hello everyone On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Matt Kundert <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hey Dan, > > Matt said: > The point, I think, of distinguishing "rejecting of past-evil" from > "rejecting of now-good" is that the true Dynamic leap forward without > a net--for the leap must produce its _own net_ (i.e. static latch)--is a > rejection of something we perceive _rightly_ as a current good, a > static latch that works, but it is rejected for as-yet not completely > understood reasons and, more importantly, possibilities. Dimly > perceiving Dynamic Quality, I think, must be at the same time a > concession that the future of this perception is unsure, as it is by its > nature the leaving-behind of the sure/static/stable/known. > > Dan said: > I am unsure where you're going by equating rejecting now-good with > Dynamic Quality. I understand it is best to say Dynamic Quality is not > this, not that, and the reason for that is to avoid pigeon-holing > Dynamic Quality into compartments. Dynamic Quality isn't about > rejection, however, though I can see how the static quality sense of > negation does lend itself to that connotation. > > Matt: > The first time I wrote the formulation I said that these were > _implicit_ rejections, and this was lost in the later extrapolation, and > that was regrettable. It's important to understand them as at > minimum implicit rejections, and it's on the model of "every choice is > implicitly a rejection of all the other possibilities you did not choose." > Because I think you're right that DQ isn't really about rejection, but > our static conceptual understanding of what is happening, I think, > must include not just our individual perceptions of what we do, but > their meaning when fit into a larger network.
Dan: Yes of course... and going back to your implicit rejection of all other possibilities... isn't it more a matter of simply ignoring that which has no value according to our social mores? To reject a possible point of value assumes that it has been considered... however, in most cases no consideration has been made at all. For every choice made there are countless other choices. But due to the cultural trappings enslaving us all we pick and chose among a select few choices that present themselves as valuable. >Matt: > I'm not sure how that relates to your further connection of your point > above to our earlier conversation about DQ being neither negative > nor positive. I'm still not sure I understand how this is possible, > without draining all the purpose out of Pirsig's original move of > making Quality synonymous with Reality. Maybe it's that I still don't > understand what difference that makes a difference there is > between "negative" (which is a static term in your view) and "low" > (which you approve for use in describing a DQ-perception). Dan: Well... I'm not so sure I approve of "low" but we have to use some kind of symbolic representation of what we mean by Dynamic Quality while simultaneously keeping "it" concept-free. That can be tricky. It might be best not to speak of Dynamic Quality at all but then how do we further the intellectual value of the MOQ? Negative and positive values arise in relation to each other. Yin and yang, dark and light, left and right... they are sides of a coin. I believe the MOQ states that Dynamic Quality comes before the coin. The response we feel to the tug of Dynamic Quality is neither good nor evil. For instance... I feel it is better to take the time to answer this post than it is to not answer it on account of some vague sense of value. It's not easier to answer it than to reject it or to ignore it... I feel some impetus to gather my thoughts putting them into words and sharing them. I cannot say exactly why. Answering this post won't bring me any value in a monetary sense. I doubt it will enhance my social standing as most of what I say seems like gibberish when I read over what I've written. Intellectually I am at a loss as to what exactly our differences are or if in fact we have any differences at all. Reading your posts I find I have the same doubts and the same concerns that you bring to light though of course we come at them in directions unlike the other. I am at a loss to explain Dynamic Quality in a static sense. Examples like leaping from a hot stove or hearing a song that moves us or reading a novel that stays with us long after we put it down are all great at pointing to "it" but we have to understand what we're pointing to isn't the reaction of heat or the notion of beauty or the sense of unity in words... Dynamic Quality comes before all that... it is the well-spring from which experience emerges... but even that isn't quite right. > > Matt said: > The "human," in this case, stands in for a different set of patterns, > one that _enables_ greater facility with problems. So: is it indeed > the case that some intellectual patterns better _enable_ Dynamic > Quality? > > I think we have to answer yes, despite my initial formulation of "no > intellectual pattern could get in the way of your ability to be in touch > with reality." For, is it not also a consequence of Pirsig's > understanding of evolution that, e.g., _some_ biological patterns and > _not others_ enabled the creation of an entirely new kind of static > patterns (i.e., social)? > > Dan said: > I would say Dynamic Quality enables intellectual patterns towards > betterness, not the other way around. > > Matt: > Well, that's true enough insofar as the whole train of static patterns > follows in the wake of DQ. And I can see how it might be desirable > to reverse my formulation, but what I'm after is how two sets of > Pirsigian ideas hook up to each other. What I don't see in your wish > to reverse my formulation is an attempt to tackle the problem that > seems to lie in connecting (what we might call) evolutionary-DQ and > experiential-DQ. Dan: I might well be wrong but here I'm sensing static quality definitions creeping in and labeling Dynamic Quality... though I do understand you're using a qualifier. But let's set that aside for the moment. Within the MOQ Dynamic Quality is synonymous with experience: "[Lila's] a kind of jungle of evolutionary patterns of value ... Lila is composed of static patterns of value and these patterns are evolving toward a Dynamic Quality. That's the theory, anyway. She's on her way somewhere, just like everybody else. And you can't say where that somewhere is." [Lila] This seems (to me) that the key to tying together your "evolutionary-DQ" and "experiential-DQ" is that experience is leading us all somewhere... we are evolving as we speak... and we cannot say where that somewhere is. The nature of evolution isn't found among bones and debris from the past... it is right here, right now. "Because of his different metaphysical orientation Phaedrus saw instantly that those seemingly trivial, unimportant, "spur of the moment" decisions that Mayr was talking about, the decisions that directed the progress of evolution are, in fact, Dynamic Quality itself. Dynamic Quality, the source of all things, the pre-intellectual cutting edge of reality, always appears as "spur of the moment." [Lila] Matt: >(The former is just DQ in the context of evolution > and history; the latter is DQ in the context of the first-person point > of view.) For I don't find very convincing your response of "not > exactly" to the point that some biological patterns and not others > produced the social level. I can't cite Pirsig passages, but I can't > imagine Pirsig denying the point that mammalian biological patterns > enabled social patterns whereas (as of yet) reptilian patterns did > not, let alone plant biological patterns. Dan: I'm not sure what point you're making here. Again, it isn't that biological patterns enabled social patterns... Dynamic Quality enables static quality patterns leaving a historical evolutionary footprint. If not for the response to Dynamic Quality there would be no social or intellectual quality patterns... I think RMP makes that point in LILA about the baby who doesn't respond to Dynamic Quality being mentally challenged. >Matt: > The problem I was attempting to elucidate is whether or not a > _particular_ set of intellectual patterns can get in the way of > Reality/DQ better or worse than another. For example, it might be > thought that SOM is worse than the MoQ because the SOM gets in > the way of DQ. (I have no idea if this _has_ been thought, or > assumed or elaborated, but it still might be important to reveal why > this may or may not be the case.) _All_ static patterns are, in the > same way, _not_ DQ, and thus a distance from it, which is the point > you pressed with "Intellectual patterns always get in the way of > reality. That is the nature of ideas." (I won't take up the rhetoric of > "getting in the way of" and distance that I usually avoid, but simply > concede the point as you make it.) And thus Enlightenment is a > waking up from static patterns. Sure. But doesn't Pirsig also > elaborate an evolutionary understanding of DQ, such that history is > a march toward betterness and freedom? Your point about > intellectual patterns always getting in the way because of the nature > of ideas flattens them out, and suggests that their worth is all > equidistant from DQ, and thus there's no point in distinguishing > between better and worse ideas. But this is the idea that Pirsig > reacted to at Benares University, and caused him to storm out. His > manner of correcting that approach to Enlightenment, I believe, is > by the evolutionary stance in Lila, by clearing the conceptual way for > us to be able to claim that, e.g., capitalism is better than communism > _for DQ_. It is in _that_ sense that I say "some intellectual patterns > better enable Dynamic Quality." Dan: There are writings that we all seem to agree offer a higher quality than others. There are static qualities to those writings that we can point to: correct usage of grammar and punctuation, spelling, unity of premise and design, flow of dialogue, originality, simplicity of thought, beauty of prose, the context of characterization, etc. All these qualities can be taught and learned by the diligence of practice. These intellectual patterns work in very effective ways and many authors use them to their advantage. Learning how to write by reading others' writings is like learning how to drive by riding and watching someone else drive. A person might learn very valuable lessons. But until they get behind the wheel themselves they will never know what it is like to drive. The intellectual patterns they form by watching a person drive are nothing like the Dynamic understanding a person forms by experiencing driving for themselves. In fact, those patterns might actually hinder a person, causing them to hesitate at a crucial moment. As in driving, there is a Dynamic Quality in great writings, as in great art, that cannot be taught. The ability to capture emotions and convey them in a way that others may sense the same feelings... knowing just the right words to use and how to string those words together in such a manner as to evoke something primordial, something we all understand at a very fundamental level... in a conventional metaphysics where there are only the subject and objects, these are responses to what we might call the sub-conscious mind or the id surfacing, but I think within the framework of the MOQ it is better to say these are responses to Dynamic Quality. Intellectually, we all know how to read. Reading and writing go together so we should all know how to write as well as we read. But we don't. Something gets in the way of putting words that we hear in our heads into words we can read on a monitor. What is it? I'm guessing it is the intellect... our ideas of what we want to say fail to line up with what comes out. We are caught up in our own ideas... monkeys chasing monkeys... and it shows. A Dynamic understanding better enables the intellect to produce great art just as a Dynamic market better enables social values to produce great consumerism. It is when the intellect gets in the way of a Dynamic understanding that something is lost... we may not be able to point our finger at just what it is that is missing but we know it. 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
