Hello everyone On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 2:36 AM, David Harding <[email protected]> wrote: > 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."
Dan: First, let's start with the annotation that I asked Mr. Pirsig about... he wrote it in response to Platt's comment: Platt: After all, the MOQ is an SOM document based on SOM reasoning. RMP Annotation 132 It employs SOM reasoning the way SOM reasoning employs social structures such as courts and journals and learned societies to make itself known. SOM reasoning is not subordinate to these social structures, and the MOQ is not subordinate to the SOM structures it employs. Remember that the central reality of the MOQ is not an object or a subject or anything else. It is understood by direct experience only and not by reasoning of any kind. Therefore to say that the MOQ is based on SOM reasoning is as useful as saying that the Ten Commandments are based on SOM reasoning. It doesn’t tell us anything about the essence of the Ten Commandments and it doesn’t tell us anything about the essence of the MOQ. Dan comments: I should think this is very much related to our discussion here... we cannot understand the central reality of the MOQ (Quality) using static quality patterns. Dynamic Quality is synonymous with experience. Experience isn't any 'thing' until we define it into a collection of symbols that stand for experience. Check it out: 25. This is okay. In Lila, I never defined the intellectual level of the MOQ, since everyone who is up to reading Lila already knows what “intellectual” means. For purposes of MOQ precision, let’s say that the intellectual level is the same as mind. It is the collection and manipulation of symbols, created in the brain, that stand for patterns of experience. 30. I think the answer is that inorganic objects experience events but do not react to them biologically, socially, or intellectually. They react to these experiences inorganically, according to the laws of physics. 57. In the MOQ time is dependent on experience independently of matter. Matter is a deduction from experience. Dan comments: In the framework of the MOQ the term 'experience' has different meanings depending upon the context in which we use it. Intellectual patterns of experience are not the same as inorganic patterns of experience. Biological patterns of experience are not the same as social patterns of experience. If you notice our discussion has gone in a circle and come back to the beginning with new insights which allow a greater understanding of the MOQ. > >> 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: Dynamic Quality isn't what we expect even when we grow old. It is new and comes as a surprise. Many people do tend to grow jaded with time however. I don't see this as a necessary consequence of aging so much as it is an attitude cultivated by closing one's mind to the infinite possibilities that abound in each unfolding moment. > >>>> 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. Dan: The oaths are in response to the memory, the intellectualization, of the experience. The response to the experience is to leap off the stove. David H: 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. Dan: Writing is basically a degenerate activity. It doesn't move us closer to reality... it moves us farther from it. However, there are times when I lose 'myself' in writing. I cannot intellectually describe this feeling other than to say that 'I' go away, the writing goes away, and there is only a 'somethingness' that arises from I don't know where. So I write. It is better than not writing. We are all caught up in this language that we use to define each other as well as define our own self. It is full of contradictions... there is no single truth and yet we can be wrong about everything. > >>> 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.. Dan: Kind of like losing myself in writing... sure. I can go along with this. > >>>>> 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. Dan: Sure, it would depend on our use of the term experience. But like I said... IF we look at Dynamic Quality as synonymous with experience then static quality becomes a memory of 'it' and not experience itself. > >>> 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). Dan: I would say we have a tendency to cover up experience with the memory of it. Rather than reveling in the 'now' we are busy thinking about what is going to happen next. It would seem that the practice of meditation techniques and zazen help uncover experience and allow us to more fully appreciate living in the moment. > >>>>> 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. Dan: As we have discovered, the MOQ recognizes many levels 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. Dan: I don't often engage in such meaningful discussions as this one... thank you. My view of moq.discuss changes daily as well... sometimes I am ready to unsubscribe and never return... other days I am happy that I didn't. > >>> 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. Dan: Yes, I know the feeling... this is what it is all about, in my opinion... an intelligent discussion. Thank you, 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
