Hi Ant, Talking about a concept which cannot be defined on a philosophical discussion board is a fools errand. Logic would say we are crazy to think we'd ever find agreement. That said, some intellectual compulsion to try moves me forward..
> I've been thinking about that phrase "Dynamic Quality at work" over the last > couple of days and just realised it was derived from a quote on a postcard by > Dainin Kategiri Roshi (one of Robert Pirsig's Zen teachers at the Minneapolis > Zen Center in the early 1970s) sent to me by Robert Pirsig in the late 1990s. > The quote read "In Nothingness there is great working". Yes. There is great working. Just because it's no thing doesn't mean that it is meaningless. I wholeheartedly agree. :-) >> David: Furthermore, in line with your qualification - some (static) things >> are indeed more Dynamic than others. So, I have no troubles saying that >> something has been *affected* by DQ more than something else. >> >> Where I disagree is in dmb's qualification where we say there is Dynamic >> Quality and static quality in everything and that all things have varying >> degrees of DQ and sq. We cannot say that some thing has largely or 'more' >> Dynamic Quality in it. That makes no sense to me. > > Ant: It makes sense to me. For instance, take jazz music; possibly the > greatest pleasure in jazz is hearing a new Dynamic riff on a familiar theme. > It would not make sense to me to be at a jazz festival and hear band after > band and say the "levels" of Dynamic Quality have remained at the same level > for each band. Some musicians will be in a certain groove that night; some > bands will be gelling; some won't. Some new riffs will "work"; some won't. Yes. I don't disagree with this. This is in line where I say that it's fine to say some thing has been affected more by DQ than something else. But DQ is not 'in' that thing. DQ isn't anywhere. From a static quality intellectual perspective - we cannot point to *actual* DQ. I'm sure you will agree that you cannot do it intellectual. As soon as we point to DQ it disappears. We point to it - our minds take over and destroy it. It actually destroys DQ, but as we know, good is a noun. We cannot help but define things intellectually - so as Pirsig has said (paraphrased)... "This intellectual designation of DQ. This intellectual designation right here -> DQ. This ought to be left undefined. Definitions destroy it. And yes I'm destroying it right now by talking about it. But there's not a person alive who hasn't. So let's get our definitions as best we can. Picking up bar ladies and writing metaphysics are a part of life." That's why I have troubles with saying that there is a certain amount of DQ in something. It treats DQ even more static than RMP does. To me, the only things that can have amounts are static things. DQ itself (and not this designation), isn't static like this. >> David: Dynamic Quality isn't some concept which can be quantified next to >> static quality like this. Dynamic Quality isn't anything. > > Ant: Well. it's something. Agreed it's no-thing but it can be experienced > and known. I agree. With the caveats mentioned above.. >> David: So, as I said, I certainly agree that some (static) things are more >> Dynamic than others but in the end all we can ever talk about is static >> quality. Because everything is static quality and DQ is nothing. > > Ant: Well, I think the advantage of the MOQ is that it least recognises > Dynamic Quality and allows us to place it in a coherent metaphysical picture > of the universe. So though Dynamic Quality can't be "captured" as a static > idea, it can be pointed to (in writing and in conversation). There's two perspectives of the MOQ - a static point of view and a Dynamic understanding. From a Dynamic understanding we can point to DQ and it will be understood. But we are talking intellectually about it now. This is our intellectual metaphysical static point of view. From this perspective - we cannot. That's why I don't like 'capturing' it as a quantity such as 'largely' or saying there is DQ *in* something. It's all a matter of degree. Even 'capturing' Dynamic Quality in the words Dynamic Quality or talking about it as we are now, of course these words we are using about it are not it. Nor is the concept "DQ". So it's all a matter of degree. That's why I think it's important to keep that degree as small as possible to avoid the static intellectual temptation to grab it into a concept such as 'largely' or the temptation of saying there is a certain amount of DQ in everything. The further we draw these analogies of DQ the further away from the actual undefined bette rness we go... >> David: Furthermore, I think saying that there is varying degrees of Dynamic >> Quality and static quality in things muddies the beautifully clear, logical >> distinction that exists between Dynamic Quality and static quality as laid >> out by RMP in Lila. If there does not exist this clear distinction between >> DQ and sq > then pretty quickly everything we say about them become meaningless. > So, some static quality can certainly be more Dynamic than others. > > Ant: David, I think you're getting confused here by conflating "the menu with > the meal" i.e. how we can classify reality (e.g. the four static levels plus > DQ as illustrated in LILA) compared to how it's actually lived in practice. > Reality comes as an integrated whole while (static) metaphysical > distinctions are applied after a given experience; depending on their > usefulness. And no matter how useful they are, these static distinctions can > never capture a lived experience completely; they will always will entail > some type of distortion. Distortion indeed. But what is it that we are distorting? I don't think that ultimate reality is 'static quality and Dynamic Quality combined'. The first division of the MOQ brings us clarity. With this first division we can say that Ultimately Dynamic Quality is the source of all things and we can define it infinitely *but* all definitions of it are actually static quality. So what RMP did. His very first division of the MOQ was to say(paraphrased).. "Leave DQ alone. Let's not define that thing over there. I'm going to designate it an intellectual symbol and then leave it alone. Leaving this undefined is the right thing to do. It gives the MOQ its strength to be eventually replaced by some undefined better thing in the future. Now I'm going to spend most of the book talking about static quality. We can talk about this until the cows come home but let's leave Dynamic Quality alone.." He wanted to define DQ as little as possible. Everyone knows what DQ is when they experience it. The more we strangle it with static definitions the more it isn't Dynamic Quality. This is why the majority of Lila is spent talking about not Dynamic Quality but static quality. -David. 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
