Hi Dan, Dan wrote: "Finally, I am not insisting on anything. All I am doing is elucidating upon the MOQ. I may make suggestions along the way which you are free to either take or leave. I don't care one way or another."
If you don't care about what I think then you don't care about what I value. If you don't care for what I value then this discussion is meaningless. I think we cannot have a discussion and mutual learning about the MOQ if we don't care for the person we are conversing with or care for what they are saying. Otherwise you might as well just be talking to a wall.. While I'm putting great effort into understanding where you're coming from, it's disheartening to see you take such a flippant attitude towards my thoughts and words.. You seem to see contradiction in what I'm saying but rarely ask any questions to see why I might think the way I do.. Alternatively I'm continually asking you questions… I'm also continually stating what I think you're saying so that you can tell me where I'm wrong and I can try and learn from that.. You don't seem much keen in trying to understand what I'm saying either… >> Hi Dan, >> >> What is Metaphysics? What do you think metaphysics is? Is it about a >> question of what is fundamental or is it something else? >> >> If something is fundamental - then can we not find that thing in all things? >> If not - is it really fundamental? >> >> Are you interested in such questions? > > Dan: > Nominally. Ok… That's a strange thing for someone on a metaphysical discussion forum to say.. That you're only nominally interested in Metaphysical questions.. > >> >>>>>> Is there only one 'true' quality idea in the MOQ or are there many >>>>>> depending on the situation? >>>>> >>>>> Dan: >>>>> It depends on the value of the idea. In the MOQ, truth is a high >>>>> quality intellectual pattern. Not all intellectual patterns are high >>>>> quality. >>>>> >>>>> Now, since you refuse to answer my question: How do you know objects >>>>> exist prior >>>>> to your experience of them? I will answer it for you. You cannot know >>>>> with certainty that anything exists prior to experience, or that it >>>>> doesn't exist, for that matter. It is an assumption, albeit a high >>>>> quality assumption. Remember: "... in the MOQ experience comes first, >>>>> everything else comes later." >>>> >>>> Why do you keep arguing with me as if I don't think experience comes >>>> first? When did I ever say that it didn't? I've always only said that it >>>> is a high quality idea that matter comes first and before we experience >>>> it. But it is the quality which is important and not the fact that it is >>>> an idea.. >>> >>> Dan: >>> I wasn't arguing; you either skipped over my question or simply >>> decided not to answer it. Maybe you don't see it as important, but if >>> you think experience comes first, as you say, then why are you >>> pounding so hard on the idea that matter comes first? > >> That which isn't experienced doesn't exist. sq isn't ultimately experienced >> so it doesn't exist. > > Dan: > A pair of very strange statements. Ok. No explanation of why you think this.. Nothing.. > >> >> Because matter is a part of experience. > > Dan: > The idea of matter emerges from experience. With statements like this > you are making matter primary. As I've stated before Pirsig clearly uses the words 'experience' and 'primary experience' differently. Matter is not a part of primary experience but it is still a part of experience. This makes a clear distinction between matter being a part of DQ(it isn't) yet matter is still a part of that static quality thing we call experience... > >> >> You insist on things like.. >> >> "Try using the active voice instead of the passive." >> >> and tell me to 'stop insinuating that DQ is something 'separate' from us… >> when DQ is experience.. ' Or that I shouldn't talk as if DQ is transcendent. >> >> And then you speak as if because DQ isn't transcendent, and it is right in >> front of us, and everything follows from it.. then we only ever ought to see >> things from this perspective… In other words - any sentences which do not >> acknowledge the primacy of DQ as experience(which is right in front of us) >> are wrong. So to say that we experience static things like matter is wrong… >> Because it doesn't acknowledge this primacy.. >> >> However - I think if we forever say that DQ is experience - then that means >> that sq doesn't exist. Which is true - sq doesn't actually exist. DQ is >> fundamental. That which isn't experienced doesn't exist. sq isn't >> ultimately experienced - so it doesn't exist. >> >> But the key point here is that if sq doesn't exist - can we ever say >> anything intellectually meaningful? >> >> Clearly we cannot. However, while sq doesn't ultimately exist - it still >> actually exists and (so says the MOQ) we might as well get these definitions >> of sq as good as we can. Good is 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, [Good as a noun] would be it." > > Dan: > This sequence of statements is very jumbled up and it is hard to sort > through them. I think if you look back over our discussion you'll see > I have been very careful NOT to say Dynamic Quality is experience. > > First you say static quality doesn't exist and then you say it does. > Now, I suspect you think this is a matter of multiple truths but to me > it is simply contradictory nonsense. Of course static quality exists. > Robert Pirsig goes to great pains in explaining static quality in Lila > and how the four levels interact. Right. Yet how does this disprove the fact that there are two perspectives within the MOQ? > Second, you say what is not experienced doesn't exist. This statement > doesn't make a lot of sense either. Where did you get this from? I > don't think it is anything that Robert Pirsig has said. This seems > like pure solipsism. "The Metaphysics of Quality says pure experience is value. Experience which is not valued is not experienced. The two are the same. This is where value fits. Value is not at the tail-end of a series of superficial scientific deductions that puts it somewhere in a mysterious undetermined location in the cortex of the brain. Value is at the very front of the empirical procession." - Lila And " In the MOQ, nothing exists prior to the observation. The observation creates the intellectual patterns called “observed” and “observer.” Think about it. How could a subject and object exist in a world where there are no observations?" - LC Pure empiricism Dan. If you don't experience(value) it - it doesn't exist. > Finally, I am not insisting on anything. All I am doing is elucidating > upon the MOQ. I may make suggestions along the way which you are free > to either take or leave. I don't care one way or another. And that's a problem. If you continue with this attitude then I'm not sure I'm too happy to continue our discussion. All I ask is that you care about what I'm saying and try and understand it. You don't have to be correct but at least give me the courtesy I'm giving you and try and care for and try and understand what I'm saying... > >> >>>>>>> Dan comments: >>>>>>> Illusory and imaginary are seen as synonymous. >>>>>> >>>>>> These *different* words both have important *different* philosophical >>>>>> connotations as I describe above. Synonyms don't have exactly the same >>>>>> meaning - otherwise we wouldn't have use for the thesaurus with which >>>>>> you've quoted from above.. >>>>>> >>>>>> Now can you please speak to my point above about this important >>>>>> difference between an illusion(which is mystical) and imagination(which >>>>>> is intellectual)? >>>>> >>>>> Dan: >>>>> These are both intellectual terms which are seen as synonymous. I >>>>> already answered this question. No one is saying synonyms are exact in >>>>> their meaning but they are close enough to comport to one another. >>>>> Otherwise, why are there synonyms at all? >>>> >>>> Yes, some synonyms are close - others not so much. It depends on their >>>> context which synonyms apply and which don't. All synonyms have different >>>> definitions. Some synonyms can mean quite different things depending on >>>> both their definition and their context. >>>> >>>> There is an important distinction between imagination and illusion.. By >>>> your own recognition below - a 'Myriad' of books have been written on this >>>> subject - so they must at least be different no? >>> >>> Dan: >>> The books? Or the distinctions? What is the important distinction >>> between imagination and illusion? >> >> The important distinction is that we can imagine things that are real (not >> illusions) and we can imagine things which look real but are not (illusion). > > Dan: > > imagine > 1. to form a mental image of (something not actually present to the senses). > 2. to think, believe, or fancy: He imagined the house was haunted. > 3. to assume; suppose: I imagine they'll be here soon. > 4. to conjecture; guess: I cannot imagine what you mean. > > Dan comments: > How does a person imagine things that are real? Don't you mean things > we assume are real? Things we believe are real? Things we suppose are > real? > > I cannot imagine anyone imagining anything real. :) Right. I'd agree with that. And that's why we can't reach an agreement in this part of the discussion here because I *can* imagine someone imagining something real. Like you on the other side of these words I write… I can imagine you.. You exist don't you? You're real? It all depends on what you call 'real' doesn't it? As supported by the MOQ - I think that something is real if it is good to think so. Of course it's good to imagine that you exist Dan - so you're real. What is the standard by which you judge what is 'real' and what isn't if it isn't Quality? >>>>>>>> What does 'existence' mean to you Dan? What separates something >>>>>>>> 'existing' from something imagined? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dan: >>>>>>> That is a very deep and challenging question, one which I haven't the >>>>>>> proper time to go into at this time. I would venture to say, however, >>>>>>> that if, as Phaedrus says, nothing exists outside of the human >>>>>>> imagination, then there can be no separation. >>>>>> >>>>>> This is the heart of our disagreement.. >>>>>> >>>>>> Because alternatively - I've got a very simple answer that I don't find >>>>>> challenging.. Quality is what separates something existing from >>>>>> something imagined. >>>>> >>>>> Dan: >>>>> Whole careers have been spent attempting to answer this question. >>>>> Myriad books have been written on the subject. On the surface, it >>>>> seems very simple, sure. But just saying it doesn't make it so. I >>>>> would suggest a bit of reading on this but you seem adverse to such >>>>> things. So I won't. >>>> >>>> "When the solution is simple, God is answering" - Albert Einstein. >>>> >>>> Please tell me where I am wrong that Quality is what separates something >>>> existing from something imagined? >>> >>> Dan: >>> "The world has no existence whatsoever outside the human imagination." [ZMM] >> >> The world. Does he mention quality here? Quality is what separates something >> existing from something imagined. >> >> Please tell me what the human imagination is… I'm interested to see what you >> actually think that it is and why it is so fundamental - before even quality >> itself(awful thought)? > > Dan: > Obviously if I go along with Robert Pirsig on this, human imagination > is everything. If you do not go along with him on it, then you must > believe there is that which exists apart from human imagination. I > guess I have to ask, how would we know that? I mean, assuming we are > all human beings here? How do I know that Quality exists outside of human imagination? By the harmony such a perspective produces. Again - I've shown you Pirsig quotes which say exactly this.. >> >>> >>>> >>>>>> Quality is what exists outside the human imagination. >>>>> >>>>> Dan: >>>>> How do you know that? Isn't this pure conjecture? If Quality exists >>>>> outside the human imagination, how can anyone know of it? Yet everyone >>>>> knows what Quality is. >>>> >>>> You seem to answer your own question here. >>> >>> Dan: >>> Really? And how is that? Or are you just playing? >> >> Not playing, I was confused actually.. Your last sentence 'Yet everyone >> knows what Quality is' answers the previous three questions. > > Dan: > Well, yes, it answers it from the MOQ point of view. If everyone knows > what Quality is, how can it exist outside the human imagination? Are > you calling us all monkeys? I know Marsha is a fox but that is beside > the point. :) No, as I explained your logic is wrong.. You're stating that just because x is before y then y must be separate from - and can exist without x. But this doesn't logically have to be the case. > >> >>> >>>> But I'll answer as well with a couple of quotes from Pirsig: >>>> >>>> "But Quality is not a factor synthesized by the mind. Mind is a set of >>>> intellectual patterns synthesized by Quality." -RMP (Copleston) >>>> >>>> Quality is more fundamental than an idea.. To see the world this way is >>>> better - it has more harmony - but this is no answer to someone who >>>> disagrees - as Pirsig notes: >>>> >>>> "How do you justify the statement that Quality equals reality?".. The >>>> correct answer from a MOQ perspective is, "by the harmony it produces", >>>> but this answer is only for people who already understand the MOQ. Those >>>> who don't can't see the harmony and for them this answer is meaningless. - >>>> RMP Letter to Bodvar. >>> >>> Dan: >>> I'm sorry, David, but these quotes have no bearing on something that >>> exists outside the human imagination. Especially if one understands >>> the MOQ. >> >> How on earth does the quote: >> >> "But Quality is not a factor synthesized by the mind. Mind is a set of >> intellectual patterns synthesized by Quality" >> >> have no bearing on Quality existing before the mind, intellect, human >> imagination? That is the whole point of the quote. > > Dan: > We are Quality. That is the whole point of the MOQ. That's it? I would say that Quality exists.. Good is a noun. That is the MOQ. Quality is before you, before me, before everything.. So more than just us, everything is Quality. > >> >> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Do you think that Subjects and Objects are a part of experience? >>>>>>>> I've asked this many times but how do they exist if they are not >>>>>>>> experienced? I mean, you're right - it is ultimately the wrong >>>>>>>> question. But a reasonable one to anyone who sees value in the idea >>>>>>>> that things which we experience actually exist and aren't just >>>>>>>> imagined. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dan: >>>>>>> If you've been following me at all, then you must see that our concept >>>>>>> of the world always lags behind experience. Experience has moved on by >>>>>>> the time we recognize and categorize the things emerging from 'it.' >>>>>> >>>>>> Experience has moved on? Is that DQ? DQ moves? You seem to be confusing >>>>>> DQ with the physical property of change.. >>>>> >>>>> Dan: >>>>> Please try re-reading what I wrote without taking a few words out of >>>>> context. >>>> >>>> I'm trying to understand what you think experience is? Is it DQ? static >>>> quality? What is it? >>> >>> Dan: >>> No one can define experience in its entirety. You are asking an >>> impossible question for the definition goes on and on. Within the MOQ >>> experience and Dynamic Quality become synonymous. Static quality >>> emerges from experience. >> >> From one perspective… >> >> As Ant McWatt and Robert Pirsig say - there are two perspectives of the MOQ >> - not one. The confusion is that you only want to talk from - the >> perspective of the Mystic - and not about the intellectual static divisions. > > Dan: > That may be so. However, from the mystical perspective there is no > intellectual distinction to be made. So how do you explain me being > here discussing these ideas with you good people if you think… Right. I can't understand it that's why I keep talking with you. Clearly you have some interest in intellectual patterns of value.. > >> >> And that you'll deny that you talk from the perspective of the Mystic in no >> way means that you don't do it. Because every Mystic denies even being a >> Mystic… By definition a Mystic doesn't like intellectual distinctions - >> including those between 'Mystic' and 'non-Mystic'. > > Dan: > Liking and not liking has no bearing here. How many mystics have you > met in your life? Did they tell you they didn't like intellectual > distinctions? Is that how you know this? Or is this more conjecture on > your part? No they never said this. Good point. What they do do - Well bad one's at least.. Is muddy the distinction between what's intellectual and what's DQ. Which is what you seem to be doing when you talk about experience.. What is experience Dan? Is it static quality or is it DQ? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes actually Lila fully defines the Quality of ZMM. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dan: >>>>>>> Ah, so here is a problem. Quality cannot be fully defined. Only static >>>>>>> quality is defined. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, I should be clearer - Lila (attempts to) fully define the Quality >>>>>> of ZMM. Static quality tries to capture that which cannot be caught… >>>>>> But it still tries... >>>>> >>>>> Dan: >>>>> No it doesn't. Robert Pirsig is quite clear that Dynamic Quality >>>>> cannot be defined. >>>> >>>> Who said that we get those definitions right? >>>> >>>> "Strictly speaking, the creation of any metaphysics is an immoral act >>>> since it's a lower form of evolution, intellect, trying to devour a higher >>>> mystic one. The same thing that's wrong with philosophology when it tries >>>> to control and devour philosophy is wrong with metaphysics when it tries >>>> to devour the world intellectually. It attempts to capture the Dynamic >>>> within a static pattern. But it never does. You never get it right. So why >>>> try?" >>>> >>>> So - you can't define DQ because you never get those definitions right.. >>>> Does that mean we should avoid it? Is avoiding it even possible? >>> >>> Dan: >>> We are constantly defining Dynamic Quality. But once defined, 'it' is >>> no longer Dynamic Quality. Static quality has emerged. There is >>> nothing to be avoided. >> >> So you deny it is degeneracy to define? Do I have to get out the degeneracy >> quote from Lila again? It is about exactly this! > > Dan: > According to Lila, only a mystic would avoid defining Quality. I > assure you I am no mystic. So there is nothing to avoid. Okay that's good. I'm keen to read your other responses then.. > >> >>>>>>>> "What would you call it? Degeneracy, he guessed. Writing a metaphysics >>>>>>>> is, in the strictest mystic sense, a degenerate activity. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But the answer to all this, he thought, was that a ruthless, >>>>>>>> doctrinaire avoidance of degeneracy is a degeneracy of another sort. >>>>>>>> That's the degeneracy fanatics are made of. Purity, identified, ceases >>>>>>>> to be purity. Objections to pollution are a form of pollution. The >>>>>>>> only person who doesn't pollute the mystic reality of the world with >>>>>>>> fixed metaphysical meanings is a person who hasn't yet been born — and >>>>>>>> to whose birth no thought has been given. The rest of us have to >>>>>>>> settle for being something less pure. " >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dan: >>>>>>> I think this a great quote but I don't see how it is applicable here. >>>>>> >>>>>> Clearly it's applicable - this attempt to capture that which cannot be >>>>>> caught is degeneracy.. Do you deny that by using intellectual sq your >>>>>> attempting to define DQ? >>>>> >>>>> Dan: >>>>> Once intellectual patterns have emerged they are no longer Dynamic. >>>> >>>> Yes, but they are an attempt. When you describe experience - what are you >>>> describing? >>> >>> Dan: >>> A memory, a snapshot, an ephemeral 'something' that I turn into the world. >> >> So experience is a description of a memory? > > Dan: > No. You asked me what I am describing when I describe an experience. > Describing experience is secondary to experience, of course. > Distinctions arise from experience but they are not experience. That's right.. So, for the most important question, what is it that these descriptions are describing? > >> When we describe things we describe memories? > > Dan: > Well, yes. How can that not be so? Because when I describe a Horse - my words are intellectual but what I am describing is biological *not* intellectual. > >> When we describe things we describe intellectual patterns? > > Dan: > Asked and answered. > >> What are those original memories which we're describing made up of then? > > Dan: > Experience. Is that experience static or DQ? > >> I'm sorry but I'm intellectually curious about your words.. I like >> intellectual clarity - it's Mystically degenerate but intellectually very >> satisfying to achieve it. > > Dan: > So you are claiming to be a mystic? Is that it? Not when I'm talking intellectually - like on a philosophical discussion board. > >> >> >>>>>>>> It's strange to me that you refuse to say that DQ = experience. If DQ >>>>>>>> isn't experience - what then is experience? Is it >>>>>>>> simply 'Dynamic' as you say above? What do you mean by that? >>>>>>>> Intrigued. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dan: >>>>>>> Within the MOQ, Dynamic Quality becomes synonymous with experience. We >>>>>>> define experience all the time. By the time those static definitions >>>>>>> emerge, however, 'it' has moved on. So we continually define 'it' and >>>>>>> yet these definitions are inexhaustible. By saying Dynamic Quality is >>>>>>> experience or that it equals experience is to completely misunderstand >>>>>>> the nature of experience. It is to say we have encapsulated experience >>>>>>> within a static pattern. >>>>>> >>>>>> So if experience isn't Dynamic Quality what is it? It seems you want it >>>>>> to be both static quality and Dynamic Quality or not Dynamic Quality or >>>>>> static quality at the same time.. What is experience? >>>>> >>>>> Dan: >>>>> What I want is irrelevant. If Dynamic Quality and experience become >>>>> synonymous in the MOQ, then to define either is beyond the scope of >>>>> intellect. >>>> >>>> What you want, what you value - that's the whole thing.. Very far from >>>> irrelevant. Without your values you don't exist. >>> >>> Dan: >>> What I want and what I value are not the same. >> >> I obviously disagree so if you could provide examples that would be nice. > > Dan: > I want to sit here and write stories all day and night. I value my > lights and my computer coming on when I flip a switch. If I do as I > want, the electric company will cut off my power on account of me not > settling my account since I didn't go to work and make enough money to > make the monkey dance. So what I want and what I value are not the > same. Does that help at all? In your example here what you want is what you value intellectually or even Dynamically. But you know that you cannot value just intellectual quality or DQ - so you follow social quality for a while to support these higher values.. All these things are still your values and are very important. Without these values you wouldn't exist and so neither would this discussion. >>>> So what then is experience if it isn't Dynamic Quality? What is it? >>>> static quality? >>> >>> Dan: >>> Within the MOQ, experience and Dynamic Quality become synonymous. >> >> Is experience DQ or is it static quality? It must be one or the other no? Or >> can it (as I say) be either? > > Dan: > Asked and answered. Please review our previous correspondence. I have been reading our previous correspondence as we progress.. You never categorically say whether experience is DQ or if it is sq. I'm interested in intellectual clarity - aren't you? If not, why not? >>>>>>>> So you disagree with Pirsig of Lila's Child where he says that Dynamic >>>>>>>> Quality is infinitely definable? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dan: >>>>>>> Of course not. You must be misunderstanding both what I am saying and >>>>>>> what Robert Pirsig is saying. Once defined, 'it' is no longer Dynamic >>>>>>> Quality. Yes, I understand it is confusing, especially if one is >>>>>>> holding onto the notion that we experience the world of objects that >>>>>>> exist independently of the observer. >>>>>> >>>>>> Which I'm not doing. In fact I'm continually telling you otherwise and >>>>>> yet you're holding onto the idea.. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'll say it again for like the 1000'th time… It can be a good idea that >>>>>> objects exist independently of the observer.. Yes that is an idea - but >>>>>> what is fundamental is not the idea but the quality of it - there is no >>>>>> idea beyond this quality. >>>>> >>>>> Dan: >>>>> So this quality is independent of human imagination? And we know of it, >>>>> how? >>>> >>>> It's not independent. I never said that. >>> >>> Dan: >>> You most certainly did: "Quality is what exists outside the human >>> imagination." >> >> Logically it does not follow that if something precedes something else it >> cannot persist and be part of that new thing. So no I do not think it is >> separate yet Quality does exist outside the human imagination. > > Dan: > Ah. So now we are making it up as we go along. Come on, David. If > something exists outside of something else then it is separate. Lets > not play these silly games. I really don't have the time for it. It is separate but being separate doesn't imply that anything preceding it doesn't have it. > >> >>> >>>> It's before it. I mean - what does it mean - to 'know' something? What do >>>> you know? Are you talking about truth here? High quality intellectual >>>> patterns? Do they exist without quality? Tell me what an intellectual >>>> pattern is with no quality? I'm pretty sure you can't do it. Quality >>>> creates these intellectual patterns - not the other way around. >>> >>> Dan: >>> You seem to be saying Quality exists as an independent entity, like a >>> god, that creates the world and yet is not part of the world. But we >>> ARE Quality! That's the whole thing! >> >> Well as explained above I don't think that. Logically it doesn't necessarily >> follow. > > Dan: > Foolishness is not an explanation. As explained above, it's not foolish. You're being foolish for suggesting that simply because something precedes something else - then that something else cannot be part of the thing which preceded it. In the same way - Quality does precede the world yet the world is nothing but quality. This is because this static quality world which we live in is created by Dynamic Quality… all is Quality. >>>>>>> Dan: >>>>>>> "Dynamic Quality is defined constantly by everyone. Consciousness can >>>>>>> be described is a process of defining Dynamic Quality. But once the >>>>>>> definitions emerge, they are static patterns and no longer apply to >>>>>>> Dynamic Quality. So one can say correctly that Dynamic Quality is both >>>>>>> infinitely definable and undefinable because definition never exhausts >>>>>>> it." [Lila's Child] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dan comments: >>>>>>> I take the term 'both' to mean at the same time. And again, please >>>>>>> note the sentence: "... once the definitions emerge, they are static >>>>>>> patterns and no longer apply to Dynamic Quality." This is important >>>>>>> and pertains directly to our discussion. >>>>>> >>>>>> I take 'both' to mean at different times . The MOQ is pragmatic - as >>>>>> opposed to idealism - and in pragmatism - situation and time are >>>>>> important... And this quote does indeed pertain to our discussion - The >>>>>> definitions do indeed no longer apply to Dynamic Quality. As soon as >>>>>> they are created they apply to their own category - static quality. >>>>>> That is why we can make a statement such as "The city of LA experienced >>>>>> an earthquake today" - as what we are intellectually describing is one >>>>>> inorganic static quality pattern experiencing an inorganic event - an >>>>>> earthquake... >>>>> >>>>> Dan: >>>>> "We are intellectually describing" you say. Yes we are. The city of LA >>>>> isn't describing the experience. Plus you seem to finally see that >>>>> experience isn't both Dynamic Quality and static quality. Once >>>>> defined, it is no longer Dynamic. This is good. >>>> >>>> Once experience is defined it is no longer Dynamic Quality - I agree.. >>>> But at one stage experience is Dynamic Qualtiy… Then it becomes static >>>> quality… All is part of experience.. >>> >>> Dan: >>> Static quality emerges from experience, and within the MOQ experience >>> and Dynamic Quality become synonymous. >> >> So experience is Dynamic Quality? > > Dan: > Asked and answered. Please review our previous correspondence. I value intellectual clarity. Why don't you? > >> Is that what you're saying? > > Dan: > No. So experience is sq? It must be one or the other to be in accordance with the MOQ. Or is there some third category of the MOQ which we don't know about yet? > >> I would like some intellectual clarity here Dan. > > Dan: > You know what they say. Like in one hand and crap in the other. Which > one fills up faster? I've never heard this saying. But it seems like you are being rude and ugly. > >> I know, as a Mystic, you might not like that, but it is intellectually >> valuable to be clear and precise. If everything can be broken into either >> DQ or sq within the MOQ then what is experience? > > Dan: > You seem to have some very strange ideas not only about me but about the MOQ. If you care you might begin to understand my ideas. I'm at least trying to understand your ideas. >>>>>>>> What actually exists? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dan: >>>>>>> The human imagination. >>>>>> >>>>>> Idealism! >>>>>> >>>>>> Quality exists. >>>>>> >>>>>> No wonder you dislike the idea that matter comes first so much. >>>>> >>>>> Dan: >>>>> My likes and dislikes have no bearing here. And how on earth can you >>>>> possibly know what I like or dislike, anyway. More conjecture, I >>>>> guess. Again, if nothing exists outside the human imagination, then >>>>> how can anyone ever know that matter exists independently of it? Or >>>>> Quality, for that matter? >>>> >>>> Without your likes and dislikes you wouldn't exist and so neither would >>>> this discussion. >>> >>> Dan: >>> Honestly, I would rather spend this time doing something else. I have >>> books in my mind waiting to be written. The fact that it seems better >>> to contribute these words than not has nothing to do with my liking >>> it. There have been times I cannot think of any reason to keep on >>> living. But I do. So as I said, my likes and dislikes have no bearing >>> here, or on anything for that matter. >> >> I disagree. While you're right that what you think you value(want) and what >> you actually value can often be different - not concerning yourself with >> what think you value would be one very big anti-intellectual mistake. > > Dan: > I am unsure how you know what I think and what I want and what I > value, but thank you for the advice. I am sure you mean well. Actually, I'm trying to understand what your saying because I care about you. I'm quickly learning you don't care much for me or for what I write. Depressing. > >> >>>> I can try and determine what you value by the words you use. To help me >>>> in this understanding I have a metaphysics which allows me to categorise >>>> your thoughts into its structure of quality. I'm relaying these thoughts >>>> of mine back to you so you can point out anything I missed or am wrong >>>> about and can thus hopefully improve both my understanding and the words I >>>> use to explain it. >>> >>> Dan: >>> Kind of like putting me into a neat little box so that you can >>> understand me? Instead, think of it as trying to understanding the >>> MOQ… >> >> Okay what is our discussion about the MOQ without the two people discussing >> it? Can our discussion exist without us? We can pretend that our values >> don't exist here but that would be a HUGE mistake. We have SOM to thank for >> this type of thinking of yours which claims that we ought to remain >> 'impartial' and 'objective' and that a 'true' MOQ exists separate from us. >> And that we can somehow separate ourselves from our discussion and then >> discuss this thing we call the MOQ. But as we both know this is ridiculous >> - The idea that we're some all knowing beings who can look at things without >> values is ridiculous and this is beautifully explained by Pirsig in ZMM. >> >> So along these lines - I am trying to understand what you're saying and see >> what you value to see if it is better than what I currently think and value. >> If I don't care about what you value then I wouldn't care about what you're >> saying either. But your values are first, then what you say flows from >> that. What we are discussing here are values not words on a page.. Neither >> you or I are going to change our minds unless we see that it is better for >> us to do so.. >> >> This is quite different to how a philosophical discussion usually >> progresses…. There is a *very* strong intellectual history of dialectally >> trying to tare an interlocutor down and look for weaknesses in his argument >> rather than actively trying to see the quality of what he is saying. But >> the old method relies only on logic whose goal is truth at the expense of >> quality. I'm not interested in such things - I want to know what's true >> *and* good. > > Dan: > You must think me a dullard and you are of course right. You are much > more refined in your thinking and I thank you for illuminating my many > misconceptions. Someday I may know what is good and true and bask in > the light of knowing as well. No I don't think you're a dullard. I've many times told you what I thought of you and it has been only good things. Your sarcasm and other responses within this post are only making me think alternative things however.. Cheer up Dan! My perspective isn't as horrid as you think.. You want me to be only for intellectual quality and that's it. But that has me all wrong.. I think the MOQ supports staying in the moment when it's good to do so… It also supports intellectual quality when it's good to do so too… Why? Because intellectual quality is unavoidable. Can you live without making an intellectual value judgement? No. So let's get all aspects of our lives as good as we possibly can. And that includes thinking which takes us away from the present moment... >>>> I've answered your quality query below. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dan: >>>>>>> Ah. So you now see static quality emerges from experience and is no >>>>>>> longer experience itself. That's wonderful! >>>>>> >>>>>> I always agreed with your position on this.. You wanted us to disagree >>>>>> about this (still do) but I held two contradictory views at the same >>>>>> time… How do I justify this? Because unlike yourself - I think that >>>>>> Quality exists before the human imagination - If something is a good >>>>>> idea then that's right - if something else at a different time is a good >>>>>> idea then the alternative is right.. >>>>> >>>>> Dan: >>>>> How can you know anything exists independent of human imagination? >>>>> Think about it. >>>> >>>> I have. And when I start to think about it I begin to think about what the >>>> nature of knowledge is itself and what it actually means to 'know' >>>> anything. What is 'knowledge'? If you start talking about what you know - >>>> you'll start thinking about things which you value. To know something is >>>> to know what's good. This understanding of the world - one which places >>>> quality at the start - is fabulously more coherent and more harmonious an >>>> understanding than one which does not. That's how I know that Quality >>>> exists beyond the human imagination. >>> >>> Dan: >>> Each day, I begin with a blank slate upon which to write the story of >>> my life. I've forgotten most of what I ever knew, and I didn't know >>> that much to begin with. I keep to the moment. What does that mean? >>> Keeping to the moment? It means speaking when spoken to, working when >>> work is needed, eating when I am hungry, drinking when I am thirsty, >>> sleeping when I am tired. I am not thinking about what I will be doing >>> after I speak, after I work, after I eat, after I drink, after I >>> sleep. >>> >>> This knowledge you speak of will only take you farther away from the >>> moment. It will never bring you closer. This world you think that you >>> understand is all in your imagination. There is nothing that exists >>> outside that imagination. >> >> I don't disagree with you. But I think that your perspective is narrow. You >> are only interested in the things which you value. What you value is >> keeping to the moment. You do not want to or value going away from this >> moment. > > Dan: > Again, I am lazy and ignorant it's true. I keep to the moment and let > others revel in shiny baubles and trinkets of pleasure. Everyone else > has plans. I never know what I am going to do next. I just do it. That's fine. But plans can be good 'sometimes' too.. > >> >> That's fine. I too value keeping in this moment. But, alternatively - at a >> different time, I also think that a person can value the intellect and going >> away from this moment as well. These two things don't have to be mutually >> exclusive options as you claim. In fact. They aren't mutually exclusive >> options! It's not possible to always stay in the moment. Even the most >> practiced of Zen Buddhists will tell you that they aren't always present >> with the moment. Many Zen Buddhists will also tell you that our minds are >> unique things which are to be cherished as well. This is why picking up bar >> ladies and writing metaphysics are a part of life. You can want to, or value >> staying in that moment before you define things; but you must know that >> always doing this is not possible. Perhaps that is why you are somewhat >> perplexed by your involvement on MD. I am as well if all you value is the >> present moment and not dwelling on anything which may potentially take you >> away from this moment… like Metaphysical discussions. > > Dan: > I am right here, right now. I am not thinking about what I am going to > do when I am done writing these words. My whole attention is going > into them. When I make love to a beautiful woman (and they are all > beautiful) I do so with my whole attention. I am not thinking what I > am going to do when we are done. I am not thinking about what's for > breakfast or if the Cubs won today or not. > > You on the other hand seem to believe it is okay to dabble in this and > dabble in that. You seem to believe you have time. You seem to flit > about from one thing to the next always planning, always wondering > what comes later. Perhaps you have lost the moment and cannot seem to > get it back, I don't know. But I can assure you, by losing the moment > you can never put your whole attention into anything. > > Anything! I agree that by losing the moment you can never put your whole attention into anything. But as I keep saying - you want to put two things in opposition which philosophically for the first time thanks to the MOQ - *do not need to be in opposition*. There is an opposition that you have set up between 'living in the moment' which is DQ and intellectual quality which is removed from the present moment and is thus a static quality.. So a simple question for you - Why ever spend any time being intellectual if doing so removes you from the moment? I'll give you my answer in advance - Being intellectual seems against your non-planning ethos. I do not think these two things need to be in opposition. I think you can be 'present with the moment' when it is good to do so and be intellectual and plan when it is good to do so too.. The MOQ supports all different types of quality. Different qualities for different times - depending on what's good at the time. >>>>>>>>>> But then, there's this other world of thought.. The intellectual >>>>>>>>>> level.. Do I 'imagine' the world of thought or does the >>>>>>>>>> intellectual level exist? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Dan: >>>>>>>>> According to ZMM, yes. And I should think Lila says the same thing. >>>>>>>>> The levels of the MOQ are provisional. They exist in the imagination. >>>>>>>>> The intellectual level exists, sure, but it exists in the mind. >>>>>>>>> Remember, in the MOQ, intellectual and social patterns correspond to >>>>>>>>> the subjective side, or idealism, while biological and inorganic >>>>>>>>> patterns correspond to the objective side, or materialism. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That's right. So the intellectual level along with every other one >>>>>>>> exists.. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dan: >>>>>>> I never said it didn't. >>>>>> >>>>>> Well - you deny that matter exists before we think about it. >>>>> >>>>> Dan: >>>>> Where did you get this from? Please supply a quote. >>>> >>>> By your insistence that all that exists is the human imagination(ideas): >>>> >>>> "What actually exists? >>>> >>>> Dan: >>>> The human imagination." >>> >>> Dan: >>> It isn't my insistence. I have made it clear that it is a quote from >>> Robert Pirsig. >> >> The human imagination exists along with a whole lot of other things. I have >> made it clear with a quote from Robert Pirsig that Quality exists before the >> human imagination. > > Dan: > So you are using Robert Pirsig against himself. Huh. Curious. No. The reason why these two Pirsig quotes seem to contradict isn't because he is contradicting himself - or because he 'accidentally' says two things which seem contradictory and I'm(for some sinister reason) trying to make it appear that way - But because as I keep explaining - it is because while Quality exists *before* the human imagination - it creates it as well... Like a parent who gives a child part of their DNA - Quality is still a part of the human imagination which precedes it. It's no accident the word Quality is part of both Dynamic Quality and static quality. All is Quality. Good is a noun. This explains a statement from Pirsig in LC... "The statement that Quality is reality itself does not follow logically from the statements that quality is not subjective or objective. That is why Pirsig never said this." So Quality can be subjective *and* reality itself at the same time. It's not an either/or choice as you seem to imply. >>>>>> But that idea is a good idea - something which you do deny… An idea >>>>>> which is part of the foundation of the static quality structure of the >>>>>> MOQ.. >>>>> >>>>> Dan: >>>>> Please show me anywhere that I deny this. >>>> >>>> Quite right. You mustn't disagree with this.. but you do find it >>>> necessary to provide such a good idea with a whole bunch of caveats >>>> provided above? >>> >>> Dan: >>> It is called setting up a context for a more expanded metaphysical >>> understanding of the world. >> >> But your caveats only confuse not expand .. > > Dan: > Then I wouldn't bother with them if I were you. I'm trying to understand your perspective. Would you like this discussion to stop? If so, let's do that because there isn't much point in talking about the MOQ with someone who doesn't care for the discussion. >>>>>>>>>> Is this intellectual level part of experience? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Dan: >>>>>>>>> It is a memory of experience, a map, if you will. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ultimately yes. But to avoid the pitfalls of idealism, we say that >>>>>>>> the quality of an ideal is what makes it exist and not the ideal >>>>>>>> existence itself.. A quality idea is that sq exists and is >>>>>>>> experienced. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dan: >>>>>>> Static quality exists but it is no longer experience. It has emerged >>>>>>> from experience. >>>>>> >>>>>> The idea that static quality exists and is experienced is a good idea.. >>>>>> There is no singular truth in the MOQ.. You only need look to see >>>>>> what's actually good and logic will follow. >>>>> >>>>> Dan: >>>>> It may be a good idea TO YOU. If so, then fine. >>>> >>>> Quality isn't just subjective. >>> >>>> Quality is universal. Quality creates all things. >>>> >>>> "And finally: Phædrus, following a path that to his knowledge had never >>>> been taken before in the history of Western thought, went straight between >>>> the horns of the subjectivity-objectivity dilemma and said Quality is >>>> neither a part of mind, nor is it a part of matter. It is a third entity >>>> which is independent of the two." >>> >>> Dan: >>> I think this is part of why he introduced the MOQ in a second book. >>> The Quality of ZMM has been replaced by the Dynamic Quality of Lila. >>> All things emerge from Dynamic Quality. Subjects and objects are >>> secondary. They arise from experience; they have no independent >>> existence. >> >> They have a static quality existence - separate and very different from a DQ >> non-existence. > > Dan: > They have no independent existence apart from experience. Right. An experience which is static quality? > > Thank you, Thanks Dan. I hope that you reconsider your approach to this discussion and actually begin to care for it. I have been enjoying it and finding it rewarding and really appreciate the time you have been spending on it. Of course that will change if you continue to care so little… I mean; intellectual discussion like this can be very difficult because we're confronting the values of the person we're discussing with head on. Thanks to the MOQ though, we can clearly distinguish between ad hominem attacks(which are immoral) and intellectual discussion(which is very moral). I'm wanting to continue this discussion and keep it on the intellectual side. Do you? -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
