Hi dmb, Thank you for your reply, and your opinion of Quality. I have some comments below.
Mark On Oct 31, 2012, at 10:53 AM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Mark said: > I am really not sure what dmb means by the distinction between concepts and > reality. Concepts are a part of my reality. > > Marsha said: > Perhaps dmb means the distinction between concepts and direct perception. Or > perhaps he means the difference between conceptual & perceptual experience > and the undifferentiated with no information whatsoever. I don't know, but > concepts are a part of my reality too. > > > dmb says: > If you're really not sure what this distinction means then you really don't > understand the MOQ's first and most basic distinction. And yet both of you > spend a lot of time pretending that you do understand the MOQ. > > It's not that you need to understand what I mean by the distinction but > rather what Pirsig and James mean to say. > > This is Pirsig quoting William James in LILA, at the end of chapter 29: > > " 'There must always be a discrepancy between concepts and reality, because > the former are static and discontinuous while the latter is dynamic and > flowing.' Here James had chosen exactly the same words Phaedrus had used for > the basic subdivision of the Metaphysics of Quality." > > In other words, there must always be a DISTINCTION between static concepts > and the directly experienced reality, because concepts are NOT a flowing flux > while pre-intellectual experience is dynamic and flowing. The DISTINCTION > between static and dynamic is the most basic line drawn in the MOQ. Well I beg to differ from your interpretation of MoQ. If we consider the term reality you will see why. You are segregating reality into only it's dynamic component, which you have now adjusted with the term "dynamic reality". As you know the SQ DQ distinction is a conceptual one, and therefore exists in its static appearance. By creating this distinction we are doing so within the realm of SQ, and have not incorporated DQ except as concept. As such, it would seem that it is you who do not understand the purpose behind this split. You are firmly stuck in the static model, and thus resort to static quotes. The purpose of MoQ is to free us from the model which you are stuck in. That is to free us from SOM. you seem to only entrench yourself in such. So who doesn't understand the teachings of MoQ here? Hint: it's not Marsha or me. > There is plenty of textual evidence that shows the importance this > distinction. > "Subjects and objects are secondary. They are concepts derived from something > more fundamental which he described as 'the immediate flux of life which > furnishes the material to our later reflection with its conceptual > categories. In this basic flux of experience [DQ] the distinctions of > reflective thought [sq], such as those between consciousness and content, > subject and object, mind and matter have not yet emerged in the forms [sq] > which we make them. Pure experience cannot be called either physical or > psychical. It logically proceeds this distinction." Yes indeed, but it is you who is creating an object ou of this flux, not me. > "Quality is a direct experience independent of and prior to intellectual > abstractions. Quality is indivisible, undefinable and unknowable in the sense > that there is a knower and a known, but a metaphysics can be none of these > things. A metaphysics must be divisible, definable and knowable, or there > isn't any metaphysics." Dmb, I have explained this to you before. We create this experience, through DQ. In fact SQ is provided through DQ, it is a codification of such. You cannot separate SQ from reality, or from quality. The distinction between SQ and DQ is conceptual. > "In the past Pheadrus' own radical bias caused him to think of Dynamic > Quality alone and neglect static patterns of quality. Until now he had always > felt that these static patterns were dead. They have no love. They offer no > promise of anything. To succumb to them is to succumb to death, since that > which does not change cannot live. But now he was beginning to see that this > radical bias weakened his own case. Life cannot exist on Dynamic Quality > alone. It has no staying power. To cling to Dynamic Quality is to cling to > chaos. He saw that much can be learned about Dynamic Quality by studying what > it is not rather that futilely trying to define what it is... Slowly at > first, and then with increasing awareness that he was going in a right > direction, Phaedrus' central attention turned away from any further > explanation of Dynamic Quality and turned to the static patterns themselves" > (Robert Pirsig in Lila). Yes, that is my point exactly which is at odds with yours. Thank you for the quote which proves my point. What you wish to do is live in SQ alone. You wish to live in the model provided by MoQ. Remember that MoQ is degenerate. What does that make you? > "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." Yes, thank you again for demonstrating the appropriateness of my side of the argument. You distinction is completely static and devoid of the dynamic. You have no idea how to balance SQ with DQ. Your MoQ will not survive and be relegated to the shelves of philosophy since you are bewitched by a ghost of reason. All you have are your literal translations devoid of spirit, devoid of DQ. Tell me dmb, what does the metaphysics you have created have to do with Qualiity. That is, based on your understanding of Quality, how does your metaphysics fit in? Surely this must be a question you were asked in your examinations. How does your metaphysics describe Quality. If you answer this at least I can figure out where you are coming from. Us your metaphysics OF Quality, or is it OF something else? Cheers, 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
