Hello everyone On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 8:29 PM, David Harding <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Dan, > >>> So to begin, I'm not sure how much you have read about the slit experiment, >>> but it's amazing how much better a values metaphysics can explain the >>> results of the experiment than can a SOM. It's almost like the perfect >>> scientific experiment in which it shows how values exist and 'objects' >>> don't. The results of the experiment clearly demonstrate that it's what is >>> valued is more fundamental than any scientific matter such 'light'. So >>> to answer your question, they are indeed working with that underlying >>> assumption. And this experiment shows that there is a better alternative - >>> one where values are seen as fundamental and not matter. >>> >>> But this is beyond my original argument, I was claiming earlier that from a >>> static quality perspective we always treat static quality as if it exists. >>> It has an entirely different value from Dynamic Quality. Static quality >>> cannot 'understand' Dynamic Quality. It never gets it right. Static >>> quality doesn't 'know' Dynamic Quality. Yet here we are, using words and >>> treating things as if they exist. This is static quality. The world of >>> everyday ordinary language. >> >> Dan: >> That is certainly part of the value the MOQ adds to our understanding >> of reality, yes. However, I would say we do understand Dynamic >> Quality. We know it as the cutting edge of experience. We become >> confused by covering it up with static quality patterns and mistaking >> those patterns for the experience they represent. >> >> I would say that from a Dynamic Quality perspective nothing exists. No >> 'thing,' that is. Experience comes before all that. From a Dynamic >> Quality perspective since nothing exists nothing matters as everything >> is equal. It is when intellect becomes involved that we judge the high >> from the low, like a person sitting on an endless beach sorting >> through the individual grains of sand one by one. >> >> From a Dynamic Quality perspective nothing matters in life as we will >> (all of us) soon be dead. The countless paths we walk all end the same >> way. The wealthy and the poor meet in the same manner and the only >> thing they know is that life has been too short. I would say the MOQ >> teaches us to act in the fullness of the moment... that all life is >> evolving away from mechanistic patterns while at the same time >> informing us that we need a balance of Dynamic and static to lead a >> harmonious life. > > Yes, indeed. There is more to life than simply moving away from mechanistic > patterns'. But I think there is more to it than that. This is what I'm > trying to say - I think that we can 'move away from mechanistic patterns' in > two ways. We can move away by finding another pattern or we can move away > from the mechanistic patterns by suffering through those patterns which are > in front of us and thus finding the Dynamic freedom within them.
Dan: I think the MOQ would order that movement according to value,or moral codes, if that is what you are saying. We can move away from social patterns by either moving down a level to accent biological level patterns, like the hippies did, or move up a level to the intellect level. The former is seen as immoral while the latter is seen as moral. But according to the MOQ there is also a Dynamic morality: "First, there were moral codes that established the supremacy of biological life over inanimate nature. Second, there were moral codes that established the supremacy of the social order over biological life conventional morals- proscriptions against drugs, murder, adultery, theft and the like. Third, there were moral codes that established the supremacy of the intellectual order over the social order-democracy, trial by jury, freedom of speech, freedom of the press. Finally there's a fourth Dynamic morality which isn't a code. He supposed you could call it a "code of Art" or something like that, but art is usually thought of as such a frill that that title undercuts its importance. The morality of the brujo in Zuni-that was Dynamic morality." [Lila] Dan comments: > > Both of these types of moving away have their risks and this is why it is > important to find a balance between the two. The trouble with the first way > of course, is that what if we constantly 'find other patterns'. This is not > Dynamic Quality, but chaos. The trouble with the second way of moving away, > however is that what if those patterns we master aren't any good? What if, we > actually have a choice not to do those patterns which we can master? What if > a pattern to master is dropping a nuclear bomb? It's clear that we have a > moral choice in all patterns which we can master, this is why we ought to > master the best patterns we can. Dan: Well, the context would be of primary importance, wouldn't it? Dropping a nuclear bomb on an asteroid heading towards earth might be higher quality than letting the asteroid cause an extinction event. But was dropping a nuclear bomb on a city to end a war a high quality event? I suppose for the soldiers fighting on the Allies side in that war, it was. I don't know if there is such a thing as a moral choice so far as static quality goes: "To the extent that one's behavior is controlled by static patterns of quality it is without choice. But to the extent that one follows Dynamic Quality, which is undefinable, one's behavior is free." [Lila] > > So with this in mind, the best thing to do is to find a balance. A balance > between constantly finding other patterns, which if done too much can lead to > chaos, and finding patterns which are as good as we can find and mastering > those(which of course over time will inevitably become not so good patterns > to master). Dan: I am unsure if I understand what you're saying. Again, I have a problem when you state we ought to master the best patterns we can master since doing so means we've closed our eyes to anything better. And it seems to me that as long as we act in the moment there will always be something better. Even the MOQ is seen as provisional. It works until something better comes along. > >>> Experience and Dynamic Quality are seen as synonymous in the MOQ because it >>> is a static intellectual construction. Dynamic Quality isn't experience or >>> value or anything else defined. Your words above, and my words now, are >>> they not static? Dynamic Quality is not your definition above, nor is it >>> these words I am writing now. Dynamic Quality isn't any thing. You're >>> right, we do bury the newness of experience under static quality patterns. >>> We can't help but do this. We've both just done it. We are using words and >>> these are, by definition, not Dynamic Quality. This is the situation, and >>> we both agree with it. Further, we both agree that in order to once again >>> experience Dynamic Quality we need to 'wake up'. But how do we do this? >>> How do we 'wake up'? I think you know my answer, but what is yours? >> >> Dan: >> See the world as new. > > Yes, see the world as new. It can happen at any time. Just, 'wake up'. > Often times though, as you know, I think 'waking up' is preceded by some > mastery of some such a static pattern. Not intentionally. There's no > particular thing one can do to 'wake up'. But if there is some such a static > pattern which is 'blocking' Dynamic Quality - the MOQ shows that you can once > again experience Dynamic Quality by suffering through and mastering whatever > static quality it is that is blocking it.. Dan: We always experience Dynamic Quality. The mistake comes when the static representations of experience are mistaken for experience itself. > >>> Okay, I don't deny any of that. But things have still gotten better. From >>> the beginning of the universe with no intelligent life, to biological life >>> on earth, right up to intelligent life over the last few thousand years. >>> These things are better and improvements of one level over another. The >>> MOQ is good in how it shows us Metaphysically, as you say, that we need >>> those lower levels to support our upper ones. It shows this >>> Metaphysically. Not just for a few people, but for all things everywhere. >>> Imagine a world where most people saw this metaphysically.. Now there's an >>> improvement. But the creation of the MOQ is more than a start! >> >> Dan: >> I would love to agree with you. But I am guessing our grandchildren >> and great-grandchildren are going to live to see a world very >> different from our own and it will not be a better world. I (of >> course) hope I am wrong… > > Of course some aspects will be worse and others better. This has been the > case throughout history as well. As freedom increases so does low quality. > But on a balance we can't deny things have gotten better. For the future we > now have the MOQ, that's quite the asset no? Dan: It would of course depend in wide-spread acceptance of it, which seems unlikely at this point. But perhaps in fifty years, who can say? > >>> Good food - what food? Good drink - what drink? A safe place to live - what >>> place? Enough money - how much is that? Yes, we can define these things >>> statically and to be sure, they might be very good. But soon enough, if we >>> hold onto these things for long enough, they too will become not so good. >>> This is the natural order of things. Things get old and become not so >>> good and eventually die. This is why I say things have gotten better over >>> time. Because things have gotten better over time and older patterns which >>> haven't responded as much to Dynamic Quality - have gotten old. We can >>> constantly update and indeed we do update our definitions of what is good >>> food and what is a safe place to live but if we do not update these static >>> things by responding to Dynamic Quality then they will get old and so not >>> so good. This is why I say that static quality is suffering. If we hold >>> onto it, and indeed we cannot help but do this, we suffer. Static quality >>> is suffering. No matter how good a pattern is, it will end up being >>> suffering. So how do we avoid suffering? We can avoid it by constantly >>> doing something else. This is our traditional view of freedom in the West. >>> If your suffering on some such a pattern, you ought to be free to go do >>> something else! >> >> Dan: >> I don't know that suffering should be avoided. And it seems (to me) >> that you're advocating relinquishing all the static quality pattens >> that hold us in place in favor of the complete freedom of Dynamic >> Quality. While this may be appealing (to some people) in an >> intellectual fashion I am unsure how viable such a life would be. >> >> I mean, sure, a person could become an itinerant wanderer living off >> hand-outs and eating out of Dumpsters and sleeping in gutters, >> constantly doing what they pleased, but we have words for that. And >> they are not nice words. >> >> Rather, it seems better to open one's eyes to suffering, see a need >> that needs resolving, and do it. All great inventions took place to >> feed a need. This is a true response to Dynamic Quality, in my >> opinion. Not running away... not avoiding suffering, but recognizing >> it, embracing it, and working to make things better for as many people >> as possible. > > Yes exactly, and this is the 'freedom' I talk about below, and it is a > freedom which the East is far more familiar with. Dan: I tend to disagree and perhaps I wasn't as clear as I might have been. Most all the inventions we take for granted today were invented in the West in an effort to better the life of as many people as possible. Even the quality standards of Japan were an invention of a Westerner, W. Edwards Deming. David H: > I think the MOQ brings this new perspective of freedom beautifully into a >Western perspective. It expands what is our traditional narrow view of >freedom (which is simply doing something else) and is expanded to include the >freedom which is found in mastering those patterns of suffering which exist. >Pirsig gave it a new name because it is more than simply 'freedom', so much >more that it is unquantifiable. It is Dynamic Quality. Dan: Well perhaps. I think it is better to say the MOQ sees Dynamic Quality and experience as synonymous. Dynamic Quality is quantifiable. We cannot quantify it completely, however. And this is why we can never perfect or master anything. We can always do better. Too, I do not believe our 'traditional' view of freedom is narrow at all. Check this out: "Freedom. That was the topic that would drive home this whole understanding of Indians. Of all the topics his slips on Indians covered freedom was the most important. Of all the contributions America has made to the history of the world, the idea of freedom from a social hierarchy has been the greatest. It was fought for in the American Revolution and confirmed in the Civil War. To this day it's still the most powerful, compelling ideal holding the whole nation together. "And yet, although Jefferson called this doctrine of social equality "self-evident," it is not at all self-evident. Scientific evidence and the social evidence of history indicate the opposite is self-evident. There is no "self-evidence" in European history that all men are created equal. There's no nation in Europe that doesn't trace its history to a time when it was "self-evident" that all men are created unequal. Jean Jacques Rousseau, who is sometimes given credit for this doctrine, certainly didn't get it from the history of Europe or Asia or Africa. He got it from the impact of the New World upon Europe and from contemplation of one particular kind of individual who lived in the New World, the person he called the "Noble Savage." "The idea that "all men are created equal" is a gift to the world from the American Indian. Europeans who settled here only transmitted it as a doctrine that they sometimes followed and sometimes did not. The real source was someone for whom social equality was no mere doctrine, who had equality built into his bones. To him it was inconceivable that the world could be any other way. For him there was no other way of life. That's what Ten Bears was trying to tell them." [Lila] Dan comments: If anything, the traditional Eastern view of freedom is narrow compared to Western views. The caste system in India (where the Buddha lived and taught) is a prime example. Japan and China also have their own rigid caste systems keeping the social strata in place. I would say the traditional freedom of the East is to look inward while the traditional view of freedom in the West is to look outward. This looking inward was probably a reaction to the rigid social patterns that made it impossible for those in lower castes to rise above their position in life. No? > >>> But there's also another type of freedom, more common in the East. That >>> is, you free yourself by mastering those patterns so that they no longer >>> exist. People in the West often shriek at the way folks in the East can >>> work hard long hours without complaint. 'How can they do that?!' How do >>> they tolerate it?!' But as Pirsig points out the difference isn't genetic >>> it's a cultural one where they figured out how to include static and >>> Dynamic Quality without contradiction. >> >> Dan: >> Well, I am unsure that they do tolerate it. The economic success of >> Japan was built on the backs of workers who eventually rebelled >> against such totalitarian methods. Since Lila was published Japan has >> suffered an economic meltdown that shows no let up in sight. It will >> be the same with China, I imagine. >> >> R. Buckminster Fuller wrote extensively about this in his Critical >> Path book. As a society evolves the workers tend to expect and come to >> demand a greater share of the pie. The West went through the very same >> thing a century or two ago. > > Yes I don't deny that, my emphasis however is on their hard working attitude > which Pirsig traces back to 'centuries ago' perhaps around the Buddha's time? Dan: Could be. I think the man known as the Buddha lived in India, though. Buddhism didn't make its way to China and Japan until centuries later. > >>> "Oriental social cohesiveness and ability to work long hours without >>> complaint, was not a genetic characteristic, but a cultural one. It >>> resulted for the working out , centuries ago, of the problem of Dharma, and >>> the way in which it combines freedom and ritual. In the West progress seems >>> to proceed by a series of spasms of alternating freedom and ritual. A >>> revolution of freedom against old rituals produces a new order. Which soon >>> becomes another old ritual for the next generation to revolt against, and >>> on and on. >>> >>> In the Orient, there are plenty of conflicts, but historically, this >>> particular kind of conflict has not been as dominant. Phaedrus thought that >>> may it is because Dharma includes both static and Dynamic Quality without >>> contradiction. " >>> >>> This is how we truly free ourselves from the suffering of static quality; >>> by confronting the static quality, suffering through the static quality and >>> finally mastering the static quality by finding the Dynamic Quality which >>> was hidden there behind the suffering all along. >> >> Dan: >> I think what we've seen traditionally in Japan and now in China is >> corporations taking advantage of workers and the low cost of labor. >> Why do you think Apple built their factories there? Do we want to work >> our life away for a corporation that doesn't give a good crap about >> us? Is this really how we go about mastering static quality? By >> suffering through a lifetime of labor? And by the time we finally >> discover the Dynamic Quality hiding there all along we are ready for >> our grave. Perhaps that is the way. But it seems a hard way. > > Yes, as said above, I don't deny any of these issues with the current world > economy. My emphasis was on the attitude of workers in Asia. Or perhaps > more accurately, the culture of people in Asia generally. There are signs > it's changing but traditionally there has not been this emphasis on > individual liberty like there is in the West. This is what the MOQ does. It > sees value in both kinds of freedom. > > Further to this - finding the Dynamic Quality in static patterns on a factory > floor does not take a lifetime to find. As you say, all it takes is a change > in perspective. But a way of finding that Dynamic Quality is by mastering > those patterns. By becoming whatever it is that you're doing, by suffering > through those static patterns and discovering the Dynamic Quality that is > there all along. If you have ever been to a place to a place like Japan or > read about it or seen it on TV - it's this sort of attitude - that you can > achieve Dynamic Quality through mastery of anything you are asked to do, is > what sets it apart so much from the West. The MOQ shows metaphysically, in > the same metaphysical system how the freedom of the West and East works, that > to me is quite amazing.. Dan: "Phaedrus saw nothing wrong with this ritualistic religion as long as the rituals are seen as merely a static portrayal of Dynamic Quality, a sign-post which allows socially pattern-dominated people to see Dynamic Quality. The danger has always been that the rituals, the static patterns, are mistaken for what they merely represent and are allowed to destroy the Dynamic Quality they were originally intended to preserve." [Lila] Dan comments: What I take this passage to mean is that the perfection of static quality is a representation of Dynamic Quality and not Dynamic Quality itself. By ritually perfecting static quality we run the very real danger of unintentionally destroying the Dynamic Quality we are searching for and trying to preserve. 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
