Hello everyone On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 6:20 PM, Matt Kundert <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hey Dan, > > Dan said: > ...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. > > Matt: > I guess I don't really see a conceptual difference between my > "implicit rejection" and your "ignoring" to get at issue we were > discussing. (Except that "ignoring" can still be something you actively > do, like rejection, and I'm after the ultimate conceptual passivity, > which is implicitness. But as your concern seems to be exactly that > kind of "no [active] consideration" case, we seem to be in accord.) > > Matt said: > 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 said: > 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? > > Matt: > Hunh... Well, bear in mind that I was using "low" because _you_ > introduced it. I assumed that meant it was okay for us to use the > term in a stipulated way, which I took from your usage (and clarified > explicitly by pairing it against "negative").
Dan: I think it was Robert Pirsig who introduced "low"... I was simply following suit. So yes, it is okay to use the term but that doesn't mean I approve of it. Or maybe I do... as long as it is used as you say in the stipulated fashion. Matt: > Your big "but," I think, > gets at a kind of instinct of quietism, with respect to DQ and > metaphysics, that I don't feel anymore. I feel like I'm at a place > where I understand what it means to say something wrong about > DQ, while at the same time understanding that some sayings are > good. I think it is this skittishness that produces the below > comments on your part. And I honestly can't just wave away the > skittishness because it's those instincts that occasionally provide the > corrective against the re-inflation of Platonism, which I take it is a > kind of hypochondria that we must always look out for (I say with a > nod to Dave). Dan: I'll go along with you on this... I understand there comes a time when a person appreciates that Dynamic Quality is best viewed as not this, not that, and when that time comes we can move forward. >Matt: > You go on to say that you think "Dynamic Quality comes before the > coin" of better/worse in the MoQ. I still don't think that is a correct > apprehension of how Pirsig describes the MoQ. But as this is an > issue of scholarship, the task of amassing evidence and > counter-evidence is yet the task not done. Dan: It seems apparent (to me) that RMP equates Dynamic Quality with pre-intellectual experience. I take the prefix "pre" to mean before. That's why I said Dynamic Quality comes before the coin. Intellectually, we decide what's better or worse, after the Dynamic moment has passed. I'm unsure how I am incorrect with this assumption although it is entirely possible that I am. As far as amassing evidence and counter-evidence in a scholastic manner... well, that is beyond both my ability and my desire. Someone more academically suited than I will have to step forward. > > Matt said: > 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 said: > I might well be wrong but here I'm sensing static quality definitions > creeping in and labeling Dynamic Quality... > > Matt: > As your first response, I want to call this your quietistic instinct. And > realize, I don't want to put down the instinct. However, I haven't the > faintest idea how you can wield it against me without having the > same sense for everything _you_ wrote afterwards. I assume that > for the sake of conversation, in the MD we have all decided, more or > less and for better or for worse, that we're going to put aside > quietism in order to talk about things. We can all be quiet in the > safety of our own homes (and real, non-MD lives). Dan: I see no disagreement here although I am at times unsure about the "we have all decided" which is why I sometimes issue a caution about labeling Dynamic Quality. I sense agreement between you and I on this issue but there are others within this forum who (I think) need reminding. I need reminding myself at times. So I am not wielding it against you so much as I am just throwing a reminder out for everyone. > > Dan said: > 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. > > Matt: > Yeah, that sounds right, but what about the differentiation in static > compartments of the train-of-self that for Pirsig also represents a > longitudinal evolutionary history, not just a personal history? Dan: If Dynamic Quality is seen as synonymous with experience, then I am not so sure that there is a longitudinal evolutionary history outside a personal history. In ZMM RMP talks about the law of gravity and how it did not exist before Newton "discovered" it. What he seems to be saying is that the law of gravity (personal history) and gravity (longitudinal evolutionary history) are one and the same. In fact, when I asked him about this in LILA'S CHILD he responded along the lines of: How could they not be the same? So I will leave you with the same question... Matt: > I think > there's a difference in context for DQ in Pirsig's texts that forces us > to recognize a difference between the evolution of a group and the > evolution of an individual. I haven't provided textual evidence, but > my recent posts have been prodding in that direction by a sense > that this is true. The "nature of evolution" may not be found > amongst bones and debris, but why would Pirsig differentiate > between some of the bones and debris at all if it weren't in some > sense important? Dan: The same reason I caution about putting labels on Dynamic Quality. If Robert Pirsig was confident that all his readers would understand and appreciate what he was getting at with his Metaphysics of Quality then I don't know that he would have to differentiate between the world of the Buddha and the world of everyday life. That is what he seems to be doing... and it is important. But only until we see... then it no longer matters. > > Matt said: > 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 said: > 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: > Okay, sure, but what do you make of Pirsig saying that capitalism > better breeds DQ than communism? Dan: I take it that RMP is saying capitalism is more open to responding to Dynamic Quality while communism attempts to regulate it out of the equation. I sense that is a danger any time that the free market is regulated. I'm not saying regulations aren't necessary... perhaps there are times when they are. But the more regulated the market, the less innovation will arise. I believe that is RMP's point although I don't think I would put it that capitalism breeds Dynamic Quality. I would say it responds to Dynamic Quality. Matt: > I'm not denying that without > DQ there would be no biological patterns, but does Pirsig not > suggest that social patterns allowed for more freedom/DQ? That > intellectual patterns allowed _us_ to be more free than ants? It > seems to me that pressing in this fashion, you're pressing against > Pirsig. Not me. When I say "bio patterns enabled social" and you > say they don't, there's a clear sense in which you are wrong if one > understands what I mean by "enable": for ask why inorganic > patterns did not leap straight to social. Dan: I am not disagreeing with you so much as I am saying that it is the response to Dynamic Quality that gave rise to biological patterns enabling social patterns and without that response there would be no social patterns. We might still be pond scum. I think we could say that inorganic patterns aren't as responsive to Dynamic Quality as are biological patterns... that's where the carbon molecule comes into play... it is more responsive to the Dynamic sub-atomic forces than other molecules. Dynamic forces enabled the carbon molecule to move up a level but they couldn't keep it enabled. Static latching was necessary for that. I think that is the answer to your question. Biological patterns stay biological patterns unless there is a Dynamic response and a static latching that enables them to move to the next level and stay there. Inorganic patterns are not capable of responding to Dynamic Quality in the same way. 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
