Hello everyone On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 10:00 PM, David Harding <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Dan,
> >>> Yes. But is this to say we don't 'experience' static quality? >> >> Dan: >> Static quality comes after experience. > > Static quality comes after *direct* experience. I agree with this statement. > But I still maintain that we experience static quality. In fact, I think > that static quality is what one generally expects from experience. It is > only on those rare occasions when DQ reveals itself that we are reminded what > direct experience is all about.. Dan: If you read my post you'll note that I didn't write 'direct' experience. I wrote experience. So in an effort to clarify this I've taken the liberty of copying and pasting a section from Lila's Child where Robert Pirsig elaborates on this: Annotation 57 RMP In the MOQ time is dependent on experience independently of matter. Matter is a deduction from experience. DG: Could you elaborate on what you mean by “independently of matter”? I can see that time is dependent on experience but am having a difficulty with the rest of your first sentence, especially in the context of your second sentence. RMP: I think the trouble is with the word, “experience.” It can be used in at least three ways. It can be used as a relationship between an object and another object (as in Los Angeles experiencing earthquakes.) It is more commonly used as a subject-object relationship. This relationship is usually considered the basis of philosophic empiricism and experimental scientific knowledge. In a subject-object metaphysics, this experience is between a pre- existing object and subject, but in the MOQ, there is no pre-existing subject or object. Experience and Dynamic Quality become synonymous. Change is probably the first concept emerging from this Dynamic experience. Time is a primitive intellectual index of this change. Substance was postulated by Aristotle as that which does not change. Scientific “matter” is derived from the concept of substance. Subjects and objects are intellectual terms referring to matter and non- matter. So in the MOQ experience comes first, everything else comes later. This is pure empiricism, as opposed to scientific empiricism, which, with its pre-existing subjects and objects, is not really so pure. I hope this explains what is said above, “In the MOQ time is dependent on experience independently of matter. Matter is a deduction from experience.” DG: Yes, this does help, thank you. What bothers me slightly—I am sure I am not seeing it in the proper light yet—is how experience can be synonymous with Dynamic Quality? Isn’t experience that which we define? RMP: Dynamic Quality is defined constantly by everyone. Consciousness can be described is a process of defining Dynamic Quality. But once the definitions emerge, they are static patterns and no longer apply to Dynamic Quality. So one can say correctly that Dynamic Quality is both infinitely definable and undefinable because definition never exhausts it. Dan comments: If Dynamic Quality is seen as synonymous with experience, then we don't experience static quality. We remember it. But the experience has passed... only the memory remains... and those static quality patterns left in 'its' wake no longer apply to Dynamic Quality. It has become what we generally expect from experience, not experience itself. > > I'm sure you're familiar but for clarity here's the Lila quote which > discusses this: > > "If you think about this question long enough you will come to see that the > same kind of division between Dynamic Quality and static quality that exists > in the field of morals also exists in the field of art. The first good, that > made you want to buy the record, was Dynamic Quality. Dynamic Quality comes > as a sort of surprise. What the record did was weaken for a moment your > existing static patterns in such a way that the Dynamic Quality all around > you shone through. It was free, without static forms. The second good, the > kind that made you want to recommend it to a friend, even when you had lost > your own enthusiasm for it, is static quality. Static quality is what you > normally expect." Dan: Right. There is no contradiction here. Dynamic Quality, or experience, comes first. 'It' comes as a surprise. Static quality, or what we expect, follows in 'its' wake. > >>> I think we do. I think that we could say direct experience is Dynamic >>> Quality but then even that is probably saying too much :-). I think the >>> MOQ would say that you can break experience into DQ and static quality. >>> But even the recognition of this fact is sq.. So DQ, the best thing to say >>> is, 'Not this, not that.' Dan: We are constantly defining Dynamic Quality. You seem to be seeking to make 'it' into some rare event in our lives when in fact it is the cutting edge of experience. >> >> Dan: >> The MOQ says Dynamic Quality/experience comes first. Remember the hot >> stove? The response comes first and the oaths come later. > > Yes. However those oaths, I think, are still part of experience.. I thought > the MOQ was pure empiricism? Dan: How are the oaths related to the experience of sitting on a hot stove? They had nothing to do with getting us off. They didn't exist until after we'd gotten ourselves off and realized what had happened. They come after the experience. > >>> Well, I don't see how it's whatever one thinks it is. >> >> Dan: >> I know. That's what this discussion has been about... isn't it? > > Oh yeah, our discussion... From what I've just read over, we have had a few > disagreements shall we say.. But each time, and I'm sure this is the case > with everyone on the planet.. it turns out we were talking about the same > thing, but have just either been using different words to describe it or > looking at it from a different angle. That said, if I was to describe what > this discussion has been about, it would be about whether enlightenment is > possible, and if it is - how does one experience it. Dan: I would say the discussion began over whether or not we seek perfection (enlightenment, if you will) in the arts through the forgetting of what we know. I said there is always a core of knowledge we must maintain, static quality if you will, in order to create anything, otherwise there is nothing to relate it to. I would say there is no perfection, no enlightenment, for otherwise there is no way to better ourselves. You seem to say there is enlightenment... there is perfection. And once it is achieved static quality disappears. Does that sum it up well? >> >> Dan: >> It is a wonderful thing to think there is enlightenment awaiting one >> at the end of diligent and profound practice. That lends gumption to >> the pursuit. So I have no argument with anyone who seeks to better >> themselves. > > Indeed. And this is the beauty of the MOQ IMHO. It shows, metaphysically, > how it all works. An amazing thing. And to link it back to our discussion. > This is what I mean when I say the creative freedom (enlightenment) found in > Jazz is through the repetition, or mastery, of those static patterns. Once > that mastery is achieved, there is no separation between artist and art. They > are just one beautiful unfolding of doing. > >>> The instant there is a 'you' or a 'me' to do the seeking then we are no >>> longer DQ and are once again separate from it and thus once again seek >>> enlightenment (DQ). We can't capture enlightenment or DQ. It isn't >>> something we can 'have' as we are only sq. But we are(thanks to being >>> alive!), able to respond to DQ. And we are(thanks to enlightenment), able >>> to wake up to this fact. Dan: Again, I think if we look at Dynamic Quality as being synonymous with experience we see that static quality is the memory of that experience. When we pick and choose we are using those static quality patterns as signposts instead of responding to experience. >>> >>> There is a great distinction here which may clear this up - between 180 >>> degrees enlightenment and 360 degrees enlightenment. 180 degrees >>> enlightenment is the 'realisation' that DQ exists and is the source of all >>> things. This is something we can 'have'. But then there is 360 degrees >>> enlightenment and this is the application of this realisation back to >>> everyday life. This is something which continues forever and in this regard >>> enlightenment is not something we can 'have' but we can experience each and >>> every day. >> >> Dan: >> I've heard this distinction made and yes it may profit some to follow >> these guidelines. I have no quarrel with this. Yet (I would say) there >> is no forever and there is nothing to hold onto. It all slips away >> like water we try to grasp in our clenched fist. Even the notion of >> enlightenment slips away as all such notions are temporal. > > By forever, I mean that we can not have it, so we try 'forever' to do so. I > think you would agree with this, no? Is this where you disagree? Because I > think that enlightenment(DQ) is something you can experience. And people do > experience it. However no one can ultimately have 'englightenment' (DQ), as > by definition, it is not a thing you can have.. Including the definition. :-) Dan: Dynamic Quality is experience, not something we can experience. So to say one seeks to experience enlightenment is tantamount to saying that person seeks what they do all the time. There is nothing special about enlightenment... we all experience Dynamic Quality all the time. > >>> Yes. This is the contradiction that to understand the MOQ you need to >>> forget it. Dynamic Quality is not an idea, it's an experience. >> >> Dan: >> >> 'It' is not an experience... it is experience. This is important to >> note. And I would say in order to understand the MOQ we need a >> foundation on which to build, like the foundation of jazz that started >> this discussion. > > Either an experience or experience itself I have no qualms with either. By > saying 'an' experience I am merely recognising that static quality exists and > is experienced as well. Dan: It depends on how you are using the term 'experience,' I suppose. > >> On the other hand, we arrive at an understanding of Quality by >> avoiding intellectual pitfalls of picking and choosing and that >> includes the MOQ. I would suggest it is best not to conflate the MOQ >> with Quality. The MOQ is a metaphysics, a collection of intellectual >> quality patterns. Quality as discussed in ZMM (or Dynamic Quality as >> discussed in Lila) remains undefined. We know it when we see it but >> when we begin describing it, 'it' goes away. > > Indeed. Yet here we are fooling ourselves. Thinking we can capture 'it' in > terms like Dynamic Quality or even static quality. Talking away and polluting > the fundamental undefined nature of the universe. Intellectual quality... >Dan: >> I would say a number of contributors get tripped up here and end up >> believing the MOQ is reality. It is not. It is a description of >> reality and as such provisional. It changes when something better >> comes along. > > I couldn't agree too much more. But I do think there is a certain quality to > contributors on MD who protect it from degeneracy. Dan: Perhaps you are right. > > Thank-you, You're welcome, and thank you too. Dan http://www.danglover.com 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
