Hi Marsha, I appreciate the labels that you are giving to DQ. I think I understand where you are coming from. You present a kind of metaphysical theology. There is also another kind of metaphysics, that is one which traces back to ultimate principles. I am' dealing with the latter approach. It is simply two different approaches. I am sure that your approach brings you much fulfillment.
This forum is about the metaphysics of Quality. That is, it is meant to provide a description of Quality in metaphysical terms. Certainly unknowable can be one such description, but I am curious where you take it from there. Is the first principle that it cannot be described? If so, we are speaking of a metaphysics of the indescribable, which is more of a Christian approach to reality. I have no problem with this. Any metaphysics of Quality comes from one's personal relationship, through Quality, with existence. I fully appreciate that your relationship with existence is one of unknowability. This indeed can be one of wonder, and be very fulfilling, and I appreciate you candor in providing this to me. That IT is there but that we will never know it. Thanks for that. I have some more thoughts concerning my approach, which may fall on deaf ears. On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 1:13 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Mark, > > On Jun 23, 2012, at 6:55 PM, 118 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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: > I do not think Dynamic Quality can be known conceptually (patterned) or > perceptually (patterned). Dynamic Quality is unknowable, indivisible and > undefinable. > Mark Yes, we can label DQ as you do above. This is similar to the gnostic approach to God. Indeed, many spiritual teachings work through this method. The Hindu Brahman can also be described as you do DQ. However, there has been much written about such an entity which allows the illumination of what these labels mean. Volumes and volumes of stuff, that I am sure you are aware of. Such volumes often deal with metaphors and myths, which allow one to get away from a dead end of unknowable, through personally relatable stories. Perhaps a story of your interaction with DQ would further illuminate what you mean. When I bring in the quote from the beginning of ZAMM, this is also very similar to what you are saying. I provided this to give you a start. > > > >> 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: > I did not confine the statement to "intellectual experience", nor "the > brain". I wrote: Experience is recognizing (valuing) patterns based on > the predisposition of our perceptual and mental apparatus. > Mark You seem to draw a distinct line at "patterns". This is your first principle. We can make the assumption that patterns exist, and use that as our starting point. At times it is sometimes useful to look at what these patterns come from. One could say that we create these patterns as experience. However, you bring in an interesting twist, that being "recognizing' patterns. This would assume that such patterns exist outside of our experience. This could indeed be DQ that you are speaking of. Is this what you mean? > > > >> 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: > Static patterns (perceptual and conceptual) are what we know. Though > Dynamic Quality may be experienced, Dynamic Quality is unknowable, > indivisible and undefinable. > Mark OK. As I understand what you say: Static patterns are what we know. Knowing is static patterns. I believe we can go beyond such knowing, for this approaches DQ. I do not see the stark line that you are drawing. For this would imply that we are stuck in SQ. If this were true, how could we follow DQ? > > > >> 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. > > Marsha: > If this is your "deal", I am not buying it as a relevant response to my > statement. > Mark Well, mainly it was to point out that we do not know what we know. One such knowing is DQ, which you can claim does not fall within your patterned knowing. That was the relevance which I was putting in. It was simply a corollary to your "we don't know what we don't know", which was a quote from our illustrious secretary of defense under Bush 2, that gave the reasoning for invading Iraq. > > > >> Marsha: > >> 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! > > Marsha: > A quote has its advantages. > > > > 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. > > Marsha: > One might say that saying anything at all is static, and here you are > having so much to say too. > Mark The point was to try to prevent one from being stuck in the static, since this is simply an illusion. By claiming that this is all we can know we create a box in which we find ourselves. The point of enlightenment is to open that box. > > > >> Marsha: > >> 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 visualize > >> 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. > > Marsha: > You misrepresented my statement, which was a question (about detaching). - > The "self", as an inherently existing, autonomous individual, is an > illusion. Upon investigation I consistently find only a flow of bits and > pieces of inorganic, biological, social and intellectual value patterns. > Mark Remember, your statement was "Can YOU attentively detach from the flow of patterns", not "YOU are these patterns". I do not think I misrepresented your statement. You speak of a detachment, not of a clinging. To claim that we are patterns is a form of clinging. The illusion is your creation by claiming that it must be existing in a dialectic materialist sense. If one does not use that approach, then one can grasp what is meant. One cannot deconstruct a page on which words are written, only the words can be deconstructed. Again, we have your first principle that begins with "Patterns Exist". This is a materialist approach which claims a truth in such a statement. I am suggesting that this patterns approach only leads to more patterns. Remember the quote which starts ZAMM. > > > > Mark: > > 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. > > RMP's opinion: > "The MOQ, like the Buddhists and the Determinists (odd bedfellows) says > this “autonomous individual” is an illusion." > (RMP, Copleston) > > > Mark > Yes, but I am not speaking of an autonomous individual, for that is simply > using the Patterns first principle that you begin with. One could say that > these patterns are an illusion, and not a good starting point. > Cheers, Mark > > > > Marsha > > > 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
