Hello everyone On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 4:33 PM, David Morey <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Dan > > > Sorry to have taken so long to reply.
Hi David, No worries. > Please see my comments below. > > DM said: I am suggesting that we experience both SQ and DQ aspects to any > given > >> experience, such as experiencing a banana. You seem to be saying we only >> experience DQ, all SQ is only something built out of DQ after the event, >> using ideas and memories. > > > Dan replied: > > I am not saying we only experience Dynamic Quality. Using the term > 'experience' in that manner, you are suggesting a subject experiencing > the world of objects (bananas), or in this DQ case, a subject > experiencing, what? If Dynamic Quality is not this, not that, then > what is one experiencing? Rather, in the MOQ experience is primary while > subject and objects, > patterns of value, memories, and everything else is secondary. Dynamic > Quality and experience become synonymous within the MOQ. Maybe you'll get > it. Most people don't. > > DM now says: You are jumping to incorrect conclusions and not answering my > questions. Dan: Not sure what you mean I am not answering your questions. Your questions don't make sense in MOQ terms so any answer would also fail to make sense. I am simply attempting to explain how the term experience is used in the MOQ as opposed to other usages. DM: > I can assure > you I have grasped such MOQ basics as experience is prior to any conceptual > schemes > to explain experience whether they are SOM or whatever. Let's be clear I > suggested we talk > about a banana just as an example of what we might be having an experience > with, hard not > to use an object as an example as this is how language works. Dan: Well, this is a problem right here. See, you're beginning the discussion by assuming there are things like bananas that can be experienced as primary objects. DM: > Might point is > that we can > experience not only dynamic qualities but static ones, and it is because of > such static or > patterned or repeating qualities that we can then move on to talk about > having an experience > of something as regular, patterned or remembered as a banana. Sure you have > to string quite > a variety of SQ experiences together to get into the conceptual heights of > named objects like > a banana, but all I wanted to do by focussing on experiencing as banana was > to keep the > experience simple. Now what you seem to be saying is that experience is > really only > ever DQ at the basic level, SQ is always a secondary construction of > patterns. Dan: No, that is not what I said. Here, let's try this: RMP Annotation 57 In the MOQ time is dependent on experience independently of matter. Matter is a deduction from experience. DG: Could you elaborate on what you mean by “independently of matter”? I can see that time is dependent on experience but am having a difficulty with the rest of your first sentence, especially in the context of your second sentence. RMP: I think the trouble is with the word, “experience.” It can be used in at least three ways. It can be used as a relationship between an object and another object (as in Los Angeles experiencing earthquakes.) It is more commonly used as a subject-object relationship. This relationship is usually considered the basis of philosophic empiricism and experimental scientific knowledge. In a subject-object metaphysics, this experience is between a preexisting object and subject, but in the MOQ, there is no pre-existing subject or object. Experience and Dynamic Quality become synonymous. Change is probably the first concept emerging from this Dynamic experience. Time is a primitive intellectual index of this change. Substance was postulated by Aristotle as that which does not change. Scientific “matter” is derived from the concept of substance. Subjects and objects are intellectual terms referring to matter and nonmatter. So in the MOQ experience comes first, everything else comes later. This is pure empiricism, as opposed to scientific empiricism, which, with its pre-existing subjects and objects, is not really so pure. I hope this explains what is said above, “In the MOQ time is dependent on experience independently of matter. Matter is a deduction from experience.” DG: Yes, this does help, thank you. What bothers me slightly—I am sure I am not seeing it in the proper light yet—is how experience can be synonymous with Dynamic Quality? Isn’t experience that which we define? RMP: 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: Now, if you have read this with care, you will see I was basically asking the same questions that you are. And I am giving you the same answers that Robert Pirsig gave to me. DM; > What I am > saying is that surely there are simple experiences of static or patterned > qualities long before > we get to language or concepts (like banana). Surely we experience patterns > in our direct > and simple experience, for example when there are two patterns (bananas if > you like) > being experienced at the same time (hanging on the same plant). And when we > are > experiencing something as moving this is a form of SQ because we experience > it as > moving, we don't experience it as disappearing and reappearing in a > different place. > You seem to be saying SQ is all about intellect and concepts but I am > suggesting SQ > is experienced at a much more basic level. Otherwise experience will remain > flux > and never move through the stages of sophistication that only after millions > of years > reaches those of intellectual level SQ and the postulation of SOM or better > still MOQ. Dan: You are tying yourself in knots here. Think of it this way: Experience comes first. Static quality patterns emerge from experience. In the MOQ, experience and Dynamic Quality become synonymous. > > > DM said: >> >> I am suggesting that we experience a level >> of SQ prelinguistically, yes there is obviously a post-linguistic level >> of SQ involving words, ideas, memories and concepts. But do we >> not construct post-linguistic forms of SQ and construct names like >> banana out of pre-linguistic SQ elements, elements such as repeating >> patterns of smell, taste, sight, etc. You could object that such >> comparisons >> involve a time delay and memory and therefore imply the use of ideas and >> analogies to construct a pattern and the relevant SQ. But then this seems >> to make ideas and memories more fundamental to the MOQ than SQ. >> But is the MOQ not meant to see DQ and SQ as the originating qualities, >> does Pirsig really see ideas and memories as underlying SQ, thereby making >> SQ non-fundamental to his metaphysics? > > > Dan said : > > Static quality patterns are secondary. They arise from experience. > See, when you say we experience a banana, what you are really saying > is that the banana is primary and our experience of it is secondary. > But a banana like all other static patterns are always secondary to > experience. A banana is a reconstruction of the experience. There is > always a time lag involved between experience and what we take as > reality. > > DM now replies: Yes sure, but experience is reality, the primary reality, > and to me > it has DQ and SQ forms, forms of quality, and these are basic and what > we use to build our linguistic and conceptual formulations on. My point > is that quality has this SQ aspect as basic, otherwise you are just left > with flux > and you can't build anything on sand or water. Dan: Dynamic Quality has no form, no taste, no smell. You cannot feel it. There is no pattern to Dynamic Quality. Patterns emerge from 'it' but are no longer Dynamic Quality. > > > DM said: >> >> Alternatively, what about looking at two items, one in each hand, you have >> them present to you at the same time, is not the fact of their similarity >> experienced by you prior to putting a label on it and calling them both >> out as bananas. I'd also that you can experience not only the similarity >> between these two items, but their difference. Now the similarities >> is all about SQ, but we always experience more than any patterns, >> similarity, SQ. We also experience difference, and if this difference >> is not patterned, what do we call it? I suggest all difference is part >> of what we mean by DQ. This is something like what Heidegger >> means when he says if we look at all the being (SQ) we complete >> fail to notice the Being (DQ) of experience. Same with scientism, >> it has all the best theories (SQ) to explain the world but these are >> never complete and a surplus or remainder as Zizek says remains. >> I appreciate that you and others are trying to explain SQ and DQ >> in terms of what Pirsig has said but what I am trying to do is test >> the MOQ against a wider context of ideas and thinkers to see >> how it contrasts with or fits in with these other ways of thinking >> about experience-reality. > >> DM said: >>> >>> >>> Is experience only something that you can have about what is >>> present in the now? This looks like a version of presentism and various >>> philosophers have seen this as part of standard empiricism and >>> I am surprised to find that you think it is part of the MOQ >>> but is that your position? >> >> >> Dan said: >> I have no idea what you are talking about. The MOQ subscribes to pure >> empiricism. >> >> DM said: I have always seen the MOQ as a form of radical empiricism so >> that it >> >> considers not only the perceptual realm as a key aspect of experience but >> anything we can experience as vital to the full plurality of our >> experiences, >> so we also experience feelings, values, ideas, images, memories, numbers, >> fantasies, etc, whatever we experience is real and part of experience and >> is either made up of statric/repeating qualities or dynamic ones. Seems to >> me >> you are thinking ideas and memories are some sort of add ons to experience >> that are allowing us to make SQ out of DQ. Is that really what Pirsig is >> suggesting? Dan: No, that is not what I think nor is it what I said nor does Robert Pirsig suggest it anywhere that I am aware of. Please take the time to consider the passage I quoted from Lila's Child and see if that answers any of your concerns. > > > Dan said: > No, that is not what I am saying. Ideas, or intellectual patterns of > quality, emerge from experience to inform us of the world. Again, you > seem to be insinuating that we as subjects are (somehow) using the > objects of our experience to inform us of the world. You seem to be > saying these objects are primary and experience is secondary. > > DM now replies: No I am not, you are bringing up memories and > secondary add ons, I want us to stick to DQ and SQ and see these > as primary and basic and the starting point, it is you who seems to > want to make SQ an add on dependent on memory and concepts, > quality does not need these add ons at the basic level of experience > is what I am saying. Now if you are telling me that Pirsig sees SQ as > secondary and dependent on memory and concepts before it can > be experienced then maybe that is correct, but I think that is not > a good idea, if you think that is what Pirsig is saying and agree with > it then please just say so, just failing to see what I am saying and > suggesting I am talking about SOM is just failing to get what I am > saying, maybe the banana was a bad idea, but I just wanted > to discuss the status of DQ and SQ given a simple example of > an experience. Dan: We cannot discuss the status of Dynamic Quality for there is no status to discuss. Static quality emerges from Dynamic Quality. You are basically saying the same thing I said to Robert Pirsig some dozen years ago, that we experience static quality. All this stuff and nonsense about add ons seems just that. There is always a gap between experience and our conception of that experience. What you are calling experience is the conception of experience, the memory of the moment that has passed. But in the MOQ experience is primary. We do not experience objects as that would indicate those objects are primary and our experience is secondary. > > >> Dan said: > > Calling us the orthodoxy is rather rude, in my opinion. It is > suggestive of dogmatic thinking and inflexibility. I am all for > learning new things about the MOQ. But if someone is going to teach me > something, they better do their homework first. So far, I don't see > that you have done that. > > DM now replies: Well you're jumping to conclusions again incorrectly, > my homework standards are pretty good, and 'orthodoxy' just recognises > that some of you guys may have an agreed interpretation that I > am not in agreement with, I could have just called it the general consensus > if you prefer that term, however I know that you and some others have spent > a lot more time and effort on the MOQ than I have, that's great, it is > greatly > appreciated, and it is good work done in a good cause that I support too. > Now I am more than happy to recognise that what you are telling me about > the MOQ may well be in line with what Mr Pirsig has said, I am quite happy > to > accept that my interpretation of the MOQ may be different from the consensus > view or even what Pirsig intends, but it is not a form of SOM, that is a > complete > red herring, I'm just hoping you and other people can grasp what I am > saying, > we can then get on to the task of deciding whether it is compatible or not > with what Pirsig has written and after that I would hope we could discuss > whether it is more flawed or better idea of the MOQ compared to the problems > we know about with respect to SOM and suggesting an alternative to SOM. > That is the informed position we should easily be able to reach and from > which > we can discuss the merits and demerits of different interpretations. I do > respect the consensus views and wish to learn more about them and explore > them in further detail but I also wish to discuss potential alternatives > and options that clearly exist, all this talk of is this really going back > to SOM is > total misunderstanding and a total red herring of my views, and I am > surprised > that anyone who remembers me can go off on such a tangent but never mind, > probably failed to explain my banana example carefully enough. I have no > problem with there being a consensus view that differs from my own, without > a consensus how could we consider of judge potential alternatives or > improvements? > Please do not be defensive with me, you have nothing to be defensive about, > and please see my questions as a genuine means to try and progress the > issues > and disagreements being discussed. All good Socratic stuff that is what this > forum is surely for. Dan: I am sure you are a very intelligent individual or you would not be here. On the other hand, the tenor of your questions and statements lead me to believe you are a bit behind on your MOQ reading, either that or you are so cemented to your own interpretation that no matter what anyone says you will not change your outlook. I like to believe the former but that remains to be seen, I suppose. There has been a tendency for folk to come into these discussions (either for the first time or after a prolonged absence) with the attitude that we who have been around awhile are enthralled to the MOQ orthodoxy, whatever that might mean. It is almost as if we are dimwits blindly following whatever Robert Pirsig says and they are going to save us all with their brilliance and wisdom. Now, I am not saying you are doing that, David, but your mention of orthodoxy, as if there is some sort of tendency towards dogmatic thinking here, is indicative of such an attitude. And believe me, I have heard this a hundred times before. Anyway, I always thought this forum was dedicated to discussing the MOQ. I don't believe there have ever been consensus views on anything. Dave Buchanan comes as close to agreeing with my views on the MOQ as anyone (other than Robert Pirsig, of course) and even we have our disagreements over some of the more subtle nuances. But that's how we grow and learn. So if you would like to have a discussion about the MOQ, I am all for it. But I am not going to talk bananas. I am sure you can find others to accommodate you on that if you insist. 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
