Ron to Andre:
DQ has been discussed as both a placeholder for the now of experience
and also as the base general concept of?the undefined Good. That being
said, the more one says about the undefined Good, the farther one gets
from it, but, the more one says about it can also bring others closer to
that Dynamic undefined experience and render that experience with a
greater understanding.
Andre:
Hi Ron, good to hear from you again. Yes, and I like Anthony's (the
nitpicker!) response to David and my exchange on this:
"Pirsig considers his two books - taken together - as a "definition" of
Quality; the first concentrating on Dynamic Quality, the second book
focusing on the static quality patterns".
To latch on to your point, take the idea of DQ/sq and use a different
analogy: the 'One' and the 'Many'. The 'One' standing for 'Quality', the
'Many' for the 'static quality patterns'. Now, the 'Many' are said to be
(static) manifestations of the One...these make up our 'conventional
reality' if you like. They are therefore seen to be 'illusory', not
'really' expressing the 'One'. Problem with arguing about the so called
illusory nature of (conventional) reality is that it doesn't get you
anywhere. It is much more reasonable (which is helpful in a discussion
forum such as this) to suggest an alternative designation for 'illusory'.
It is one which Ken Wilber uses. He is not hung up about 'the illusory
nature' of so and so. He simply suggests that our designations and
(therefore) our understanding is always PARTIAL. In MOQ language: DQ/sq.
They are the 'piles of sand' taken from the 'endless landscape'. And
herein lies the strength of the MOQ once again (and the usefulness of
Wilber).
SOM's strength lies in unifying all these grains of sand and lumping
them into 'subjects and 'objects'. The MOQ's strength lies in, not only
picking up the (SOM) subjects and objects but also,in the process,
picking up the spilled messes (the platypi) this created by arguing that
Quality is the ground of all being from which values (S/O) are abstracted.
In other words it has unified and harmonized many 'loose ends'...a huge
improvement, therefore on SOM. A huge unifying/integrating of
divisions/partiality. DQ/sq. A clearing away of boundaries.
It clearly argued the 'existence' of this endless landscape (DQ) from
which subjects and objects are abstracted (sq). With this move it joined
the wisdom traditions, the perennial philosophies whilst at the same
time fitting in quite nicely as a "continuation (meaning improvement) of
mainstream twentieth- century American philosophy.It is a form of
pragmatism, of instrumentalism, which says the test of the true is the
good. It adds that this good is not a social code or some
intellectualized Hegelian Absolute. It is direct everyday experience".
(LILA, p 373)
But Pirsig realizes this MOQ idea is, once again PARTIAL. Hence it is
'provisional'...until something 'better' comes along. That's why DQ can
be defined indefinitely! All representations/manifestations are partial.
And that's why he concentrated on static patterns of quality. To unify
experience in such a way as to live better, do better, think better, die
better. In other words: to serve morality.
And I think this is exactly your point. Thanks Ron.
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
