Hi Dan,
> Dan:
> Yes this is a good point. I think the sentence you left off might be
> important here:
>
> "Dynamic Quality is affirmative."
>
> When I queried him on this Robert Pirsig answered:
>
> "Yes, my statement that Dynamic Quality is always affirmative was not
> a wise statement, since it constitutes a limitation or partial
> definition of Dynamic Quality. Whenever one talks about Dynamic
> Quality someone else can take whatever is said and make a static
> pattern out of it and then dialectically oppose that pattern. The best
> answer to the question, “What is Dynamic Quality?” is the ancient
> Vedic one——“Not this, not that.”
>
> Dan comments:
> I take this to mean that Dynamic Quality is free of any pattern. If
> that is so then we cannot juxtaposition static quality freedom against
> Dynamic Quality freedom in any meaningful way. I wonder how that
> stacks up against statements like this from LILA:
>
> "Dynamic Quality is the pre-intellectual cutting edge of reality, the
> source of all things, completely simple and always new. It was the
> moral force that had motivated the brujo in Zuni. It contains no
> pattern of fixed rewards and punishments. Its only perceived good is
> freedom and its only perceived evil is static quality itself-any
> pattern of one-sided fixed values that tries to contain and kill the
> ongoing free force of life."
>
> "Static quality patterns are dead when they are exclusive, when they
> demand blind obedience and suppress Dynamic change. But static
> patterns, nevertheless, provide a necessary stabilizing force to
> protect Dynamic progress from degeneration. Although Dynamic Quality,
> the Quality of freedom, creates this world in which we live, these
> patterns of static quality, the quality of order, preserve our world.
> Neither static nor Dynamic Quality can survive without the other."
>
> Dan comments:
> Here it is clear that Dynamic Quality is to be seen as the Quality of
> freedom while static quality is the quality of order. Since neither
> can survive without the other we cannot negate the one without also
> negating the other.
>
Yes. I'm not sure if we can negate 'Dynamic Quality' as there is no thing to
negate but I get your point..
> It seems to me that by mastering static patterns and putting them to
> sleep they are being negated. Wouldn't you agree?
Yes I would. However call it what we may - my question still stands - that is -
"can we achieve freedom without 'doing some other static pattern'?". Our
western understanding would ordinarily say that we couldn't. There is another
type of freedom in the East however - which the MOQ points to Metaphysically -
which says that we can. I can see more clearly now thanks to this above
distinction, that it is the fact that Western freedom involves 'doing something
else' which distinguishes it from the more commonly freedom found in the East.
> Dan:
> But in truth if every soldier questioned orders war would come to an end.
Okay. At the risk of debating what makes a good soldier I won't disagree here..
> Dan:
> My point was how do we know when we are working for a criminal? I
> chose Chicago politics because of the history of Chicago politics. It
> isn't my definition. Do some reading if you don't believe me. You are
> talking as if we have a choice in following static patterns. I am
> saying as long as we follow static patterns there is no choice. A good
> soldier follows orders. A good politician seeks votes. If either of
> them do not do as required they will not be soldiers or politicians
> for long. The goodness of each lies in the social value of soldiers
> and politicians, not in some idealized sense of goodness apart and
> separate.
>
> Freedom as a choice not to do something is a negation of static
> quality, is it not? So it is free will but not freedom? I grow
> confused…
Yes we have free will as a result of freedom so I see them as very much the
same thing. And both are a negation of static quality. My original point
here before we got caught up on what makes a good politician or a good criminal
or a good soldier was the rather banal comment that we both know what freedom
in the West is. And that is the negation of static quality that results in our
doing something else..
> Dan:
> Actually I am speaking from the perspective of everyday affairs. I
> have no way of knowing the perspective of the Buddha.
But you do know the perspective of the Buddha Dan. Everyone does. As you say..
you just have to 'wake up'.
> Dan:
> The way I see it, we use words as representations of experience. We
> use words to symbolically point at something that has already moved
> on. That's all we can ever do when it comes to speaking or writing. We
> cannot capture direct experience, or Dynamic Quality.
We can't capture direct experience or Dynamic Quality. That's right. So why do
we try? Why bother? Why speak? The 'truth' of Dynamic Quality is what is not
said. Dynamic Quality isn't anything. Dynamic Quality isn't words.. I have
heard that Buddhist monks go for years without saying anything…
But then the answer to these questions is obvious. We can't help but define
these things. Purity identified ceased to be` purity… Protests to noise are
form of protest.
> I see conflict arising here because we fill our cups with old tea. It
> doesn't taste good but we refuse to pour it out because it is all we
> have.
Yes. However someone isn't going to change their mind unless they think it's
better for them to do so.. Why are people hesitant to think another way is
better? Why are they hesitant to empty their cup? I'm interested in this. Some
folks on here don't value static quality distinctions. They think static
quality is too finicky. Too nitpicky. And to be honest I don't actually
disagree with their criticisms. We've all got to the point where some thing is
just too finicky and 'lost'. SOM is great at this. But, of course, these
distinctions are unavoidable. So we ought to get them as good as we can.
Until they see the value in them(or indeed that they're unavoidable) they won't
start taking Metaphysical divisions seriously...
> Dan:
> Dynamic Quality is an intellectual term as is every word we write. We
> always speak and write from the world of everyday affairs. To pretend
> we can speak from the world of the Buddha is only that... pre tense.
I disagree. We can and do speak from the world of the Buddha. I mean you're
right in that all words, on reflection, are static quality. But what of words
which point to Dynamic Quality? Do the words of the Buddha not point to
Dynamic Quality? When the Buddha points to Dynamic Quality, he is not making
intellectual distinctions. The words he is using could be broken part into
static quality distinctions certainly - but that is not what he is pointing at.
When you tell me to 'wake up', is that you making an intellectual distinction
between actual wakefulness and sleep? The place we are speaking from or the
values we are talking about or pointing to is important.. Especially if those
values we are pointing at or talking about, are defined or not.
> Dynamic Quality is meaningless. It is not this, not that. When we give
> meaning to it Dynamic Quality is no longer Dynamic Quality. That's the
> whole point of the hot stove experiment. Something gets us off the
> stove but we don't know what it is until later.
I agree. And right now you are speaking to the value of Dynamic Quality. Of
how this quality is undefined. I could misread what you've written and start
analysing it intellectually but that would miss what you are pointing to…
>>>> I don't think that people in the East are Buddhas. They strive for things
>>>> in a way that is similar to how the Buddha did hundreds of years ago.
>>>> Regardless, if you don't think that people in the East are much different
>>>> from people in the West in their philosophy and outlook on life then I
>>>> suppose there's not much I can say..
>>>
>>> Dan:
>>> I would say their cultural mores are perhaps different but we as human
>>> beings all cherish similar things... things being the operative word
>>> here.
>>
>> Indeed. Goods, values, morals- they're universal. How we statically
>> manifest our values however - is different. How the East and West values
>> Dynamic Quality - is different. The West values Dynamic Quality through
>> it's veneration of 'Freedom'. As Pirsig writes:
>>
>> "When they call it freedom, that's not right. 'Freedom' doesn't mean
>> anything. Freedom's just an escape from something negative. The real reason
>> it's so hallowed is that when people talk about it they mean Dynamic
>> Quality."
>>
>> But there is other way of achieving the same Dynamic Quality without this
>> risk of chaos. This is something the East has worked out…
>
> Dan:
> But what is freedom an escape to? Isn't that the question we should be
> asking rather than what it is an escape from? If freedom is an escape
> to something better, isn't that a response to Dynamic Quality?
No, not always. High quality or some thing better simply isn't Dynamic
Quality. As you quote - Pirsig has said that Dynamic Quality isn't always
affirmative like this. Dynamic Quality isn't always 'some thing' better. For
Dynamic Quality isn't anything. Including high quality. The freedom we have in
the West is an escape from some such a pattern to another such a pattern.
>>
>> They are both. Ultimately, you're right. Everything is Dynamic Quality.
>> They are different terms and not different things. It's all Dynamic
>> Quality. It is the source of all things.
>
> Dan:
> In the Metaphysics of Quality, everything is not Dynamic Quality. If
> it was, it wouldn't be a metaphysics. I am not talking ultimately... I
> am talking from the standpoint of the MOQ. I assume we all are, or at
> least we should be since this is a forum dedicated to the MOQ.
I think a good place to start from in any metaphysics is ultimately and work
from there. In the MOQ ultimately everything is Dynamic Quality. It is stated
plain as day in the very last sentence of Lila:
" Good as a noun.. Of course, the ultimate Quality isn't a noun or an adjective
or anything else definable, but if you had to reduce the whole Metaphysics of
Quality to a single sentence, that would be it."
That is the crux of the MOQ to me in that sentence. I get your opposition to
people claiming that they can do nothing but speak from the perspective of the
Buddha. I think it ridiculous if someone comes onto a philosophical discussion
board and says nothing in-particular. But they're not going to change their
minds unless they think that it's better to do so…
> Dan:
> Yes, so to posit Dynamic Quality as everything is a show-stopper.
> There is no way to define reality if everything is one. I think that's
> what causes so much frustration when some contributors start yelping
> about Dynamic Quality being the same as static quality. It doesn't
> make metaphysical sense. And we are discussing a metaphysics.
I think those contributors are speaking to the undefined nature of quality.
That Dynamic Quality is undefined is ultimately correct as I have said.
However there is a whole other value which is neglected by their focus on
Dynamic Quality. From this neglect chaos arises… Can you see the chaos?
> My pleasure, David. Thank you too.
I'm still very much enjoying this conversation. Thanks Dan,
-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
