Hi Dan, >> 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.
How cool. It's cool that you queried Pirsig on this. This is forcing me to think... I still struggle to see how we do not experience static quality... at all. I'll elaborate - your question to Pirsig was whether experience is that which we define. I don't actually hold this view. I hold the view that experience is *both* what we define *and* what we don't. Certainly it's true that we don't define always comes first. But, I still see those definitions which we use as a part of experience.. Actually I found you queried Pirsig on the actual term of direct experience.. Here's the quote. Perhaps you can elaborate... "I am beginning to see what you mean here. Direct experience does not mean direct experience per se but rather experience directly perceived. It may just be a matter of semantics but I have always argued there is no such thing as direct experience. Now I sense I have been looking at the question backwards, so to speak. RMP: Yes, see notes 25, 30, and 57." >> 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. Yes. I agree. > 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. Okay.. I'm only going by what Pirsig has written in Lila. He writes that static quality is what you normally expect. When one is first born, as described in Lila, there is Dynamic Quality abound. But as we get older things become more and more static. And, as you get older, Dynamic Quality is rarely what you expect (unless one undertakes some sort of Zen training). Ergo, when one gets older, without any sort of mastery, Dynamic Quality is rarely directly experienced. The mind without mastery of some such a static quality is like a monkey swinging from branch to branch or static quality to static quality. I'm sure you've heard of this in your travels.. >>> 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. Yes, but we still give those oaths. You seem, to me, to say that there are things which exist(such as oaths) that we don't experience. This is not empiricism and, to me, this is not the MOQ. I think that static things like oaths, are part of experience. I mean, on further thought, I can contradict myself here and say, it's true. We don't actually experience oaths. That the experience is just some static quality which never really defines reality or indeed what happened and what we experienced. That static quality never really can capture Dynamic Quality or what we experienced. But here we are. Writing. There's an entirely different quality to static quality. And because I think the MOQ is the best, and the MOQ sees value in static patterns as well as Dynamic Quality - I think that static quality exists and is experienced. >> 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? Very close. However I would like to re-iterate that this enlightenment (like everything) doesn't last forever. Pretty soon, some new static quality will come along and ruin our Zen... Further I think the static patterns, while they are forgotten, are still important. They provide the path to which we can find Dynamic Quality. When something is low quality, or when I'm doing something and not doing a very good job, that little voice inside my head will be very loud. As the quality of what I'm doing improves, with practice, the voice will quieten down. Until 'pouf' no more thought, just an 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. Are memories not a part of experience? I should probably define my use of experience as pretty much synonymous with value. >> 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. I can't say I experience Dynamic Quality all the time. I would say that I experience the effects of Dynamic Quality all the time. Experience of Dynamic Quality however is rarely what I expect (in line with the Lila quote earlier). >>>> 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. Indeed it does and hopefully I've articulated enough in this post to show you why I think it's good to include static quality as part of experience. >>> 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. Or on second thought perhaps you are. It is all too easy to forget these intellectual patterns merely represent reality and are not reality itself. My view changes from day to day on this issue with MD. >> Thank-you, > > You're welcome, and thank you too. I know I keep talking about it but I really do enjoy these conversations. It's good to chat with someone who forces me to articulate myself as much as you do. -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
