David M said:
Let's eat a banana, and then eat another one, and experience its full flavour.
I assume that as they are both bananas they have much in common, that this is
the sort of pattern we can experience that we wish to call SQ. Of course, no
two bananas are exactly the same, although they have a certain level of
similarity/SQ. Each banana was grown in a different place, in a different soil,
under a sun on different days, etc. So each banana is a bit different and we
may well experience this difference in their taste and so they experience two
different varieties of the full range of possible flavours for individual
bananas. And this is a significant part of what we mean by
difference/DQ/uniqueness.
Do we all agree with the above dear MOQers or not?
dmb says:
No, I disagree.
It really is a bummer that the MOQ's central distinction is still so widely
misunderstood.
There is Dynamic Quality and static quality, just two elements and one
distinction. That's it. Keep those two elements straight and you're off to a
good start. Confuse, conflate or swap those elements and you've got trouble.
One of my favorite quotes on this distinction comes from the end of chapter 29
in Lila, where Pirsig quotes William James. I think this is the key to
understanding the distinction between DQ and sq, or at least it's a very neat
and simple way to get a handle on these two central elements of the MOQ.
"There must always be a discrepancy between concepts [static quality] and
reality [Dynamic Quality], 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."
Here Pirsig and James are saying that concepts are static and reality is
dynamic. That's it, just two elements: concepts and reality. By reality, as we
can see from the paragraphs leading up to this quote, Pirsig and James simply
mean experience, specifically pure experience, pre-conceptual experience, the
immediate flux of life. This is not to say that concepts are non-existent but
to say the concepts are not to be confused with that primary experiential
reality. Concepts are secondary additions which we add to experience, use to
guide experience, to define the salient aspects of experience.
By saying that a banana is a "pattern we can experience" you've undone the
distinction. Banana is a word, a concept, a static pattern DERIVED from
experience. That's why we can right say, "I ate a banana" to describe a
thousand different experiences. The experience is dynamic but the static
pattern "banana" is not, obviously. Unless you have trouble spelling or
something, "banana" remains to be "banana" no matter how many different
experiences it refers to and no matter how many different people use the word
to define their experience. That's how words and concepts have to be or we
wouldn't be able to communicate or think or reason.
Reality is dynamic and is directly known. It is experience before you can put
it into words or concepts. Bananas are not undefinable. Everybody knows what
you mean as soon as you say "banana". We not it's not an "apple" or a "truck"
or anything else. It is discontinuous with all the other words and concepts
that it is not. That's how words and concepts work. We put a fence around it,
so to speak, to separate it from all the other concepts. That's the definition
of definition, if you will. "Fin" means end or limit, right? De FIN itely!
Experience and concepts. That's it. One is not the other. Period. They have a
relationship but there will always be that discrepancy between experience is
dynamic and concepts are not dynamic. Concepts are static and experience is not
static.
C'mon, you guys. You can get this, right? It's not that hard.
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
