Hi, There seems to be some "stuckness" going on here as a result of the words being used. I will provide some thoughts below.
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 12:33 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Joe, > > I do not think Dynamic Quality can be known conceptually (patterned) or > perceptually (patterned). Dynamic Quality is unknowable, indivisible and > undefinable. Mark: "And what is good, Phaedrus, and what is not good- need we ask anyone to tell us these things?" ZAMM- quote which leads the book. Until one grasps this quote, one does not grasp what is being told in ZAMM. DQ is not unknowable, for we all know it. We could say that DQ is indivisible, but then so is Love. What can the indivisible part tell us? We can define anything we want, for that is what we do as humans. Any definition of anything is insufficient, for that is a property of SQ. To say that DQ is undefinable, suggests that we cannot relate it. But we relate DQ all the time. Marsha: > Experience is recognizing patterns based on the predisposition of our > perceptual and mental apparatus. How is it that human beings might have > access to what is beyond that apparatus? Mental white noise! Mark: The intellectual experience is only a small part of human existence. The brain is an organ like the heart. We always have access beyond the brain, or the heart, or the gut for that matter. To conceive that we are stuck in experience (of whatever kind) leaves out a lot of human existence. Experience is created by our bodies, but just think what lies before and after that experience. There is a whole world there. Marsha: > Static patterns (perceptual and conceptual) are what we know. Mark: No, we know much more than that. We know what is before such static patterns, and what happens when they appear. Life is not existing in shadows of two dimensional presentation. Try to understand Plato's sun. Marsha: > Here is where the idea of evolution _seems_ to add value to our > understanding, or maybe not. We don't know what we don't know! Mark: Here's the deal: 1. We know that we know 2. We know that we don't know 3. We don't know what we don't know 4. We don't know what we know (we must never forget this last configuration). There are so many things that we do not know that we know. One does not simply stop at a definition of static patterns, one travels beyond that to know more that we know. Words can get one stuck at what seems to be and end of knowing. But such a thing is just an illusion created by believing the words. Words are not meant to provide limits to knowledge, they are meant to continue to extend knowledge, forever. Mark: > And as RMP has advised "To the extent that one's behavior is controlled by > static patterns of value it is without choice. But to the extent that one > follows Dynamic Quality, which is undefinable, one's behavior is free." Mark: Yes, exactly! One is controlled by static patterns if one follows them. One such following would be to say that DQ is unknowable, indivisible and undefinable. One does not need to follow those rules, one can follow DQ. It is important to not box oneself in with static patterns. That is what Pirsig is saying. The more rigorous MoQ becomes, the less it becomes about Quality. It becomes the Metaphysics of MoQ (MoMoQ). Then one can take it a step farther and it becomes the MoMoMoQ. This goes on forever like a snake eating its own tail. This is what happens when one follows static patterns. One is not free. Mark: > Can you attentively detach, for even a few minutes, from the flow of > patterns? Maybe slightly dizzy from that merry-go-round is the better > place to be? Maybe being slightly dizzy enabled Einstein to visualiz > e something that freed him from the past? > Mark: If one detaches from this flow of patterns, one is no longer the flow of patterns. The flow of patterns are something that is happening to one; just like one is not part of the roller coaster that one is experiencing, but can say "I am on a roller coaster, I am on it". As you correctly say, there is something which can detach. This is known as the Self. The Self is not some logical construct that can be encountered through thinking about it. The self is what experiences the thinking. It is the page on which the words of your life are written. One can search forever in the words and never see the page. It is not part of the words. It is much more than an opinion, it is a way of life. It is the Quality Way. It is what Pirsig writes about in ZAMM. All my opinion of course, just like Pirsig has his opinion. Mark > > > > > > 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 > 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 > 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
