Last minute addendum.. Dear Horse,
It is amazing to me that we cannot talk about a 'perspective' which is fundamental to the MOQ. Khoo is totally right that "From the point of view of Eastern Philosophy, there is no denial of intellect, but merely placing it in its proper place." This too is what the MOQ does and so can we not *intellectually* talk about the alternative perspective or the experience of Dynamic Quality? Along these lines I was about to post this riddled with the term 'perspective' and then noticed your lack of value for the term 'perspective'. In line with RMP I will start to use the terms 'static point of view' and 'Dynamic understanding' instead as per the following two quality Lila's Child Quotes.. "From an intellectual point of view, Dynamic understanding is a logical contradiction. Logic does not control Dynamic understanding however and within it there is no contradiction." Before I paste the other quote - see how a Dynamic understanding is *opposed* to intellect? It is a logical *contradiction*. These are not my words Horse. They are RMP's. Anyway here's the other quote in which RMP again uses the terms 'static point of view' and 'Dynamic understanding'.. "Good question. The “Gateless Gate” analogy of the Buddhists may be the answer. In this analogy, as one approaches the gate, it seems to be a goal, but after one has passed through and looks back he sees there never was any gate Translating back into the MOQ, one can say that Dynamic Quality is a goal from a static point of view, but is the origin of all things from a Dynamic understanding." Anyway, feel free to pull me up if I say anything below which you are unhappy with and I will try and adjust accordingly. I would like to re-iterate that I do very much value this forum for its intellectual value and I think it has a great culture because of it's support of this. Thanks, David. > djh said to Ron: > ... From this Dynamic Quality perspective static quality is degenerate. > ....Folks do experience DQ. All the time. Even if calling it a 'perspective' > is wrong - this doesn't mean that it doesn't exist or that we cannot > intellectually talk about it. ...There are different pespectives of the MOQ > dmb. There is the intellectual perspective which you seem to be stuck in. > And there is also a 'perspective' of the MOQ which is *outside*, *before* and > actually the 'perspective' which *creates* the intellectual level. This is > the non-'perspective' of DQ. To repeat myself - the MOQ *expands > rationality* by including this 'perspective' and other value perspectives as > part of its metaphysical structure. From a DQ or strictly mystic > understanding - static quality is evil and degenerate. RMP and myself can > intellectually say that. Why can't you? > > dmb: > Let me try this again. You are equating quality and evil. Static quality is > evil? This short phrase defies the meaning of the term "quality" and so it's > obviously a very bad reading of Pirsig. djh: Yes and no dmb. The short phrase defies the meaning of the term "static quality" but static quality is not by itself evil.. While static quality is evil from a Dynamic understanding - from a static point of view the change brought about by Dynamic Quality is evil and degenerate. As explained in Lila the concepts of static quality and Dynamic Quality came to RMP while he was reading about the Brujo.. "The division he finally settled on was one he didn't really choose in any deliberative way. It was more as if it chose him. He'd been reading Ruth Benedict's Patterns of Culture without any particular search in mind, when a relatively minor anecdote stopped him. It stayed with him for weeks. He couldn't get it out of his mind. The anecdote was a case-history in which there was a *conflict of morality*. It concerned a Pueblo Indian who lived in Zuni, New Mexico, in the nineteenth century. Like a Zen koan (which also originally meant 'case-history') the anecdote didn't have any single right answer but rather a number of possible meanings that kept drawing Phaedrus deeper and deeper into the moral situation that was involved." As we know the anecdote was the anecdote of the Brujo... "The priests had proclaimed themselves good and the brujo evil. The brujo had proclaimed himself good and the priests evil. A showdown had occurred and the brujo had won!".. "Phaedrus thought about this context again and again it became apparent there were *two kinds of good and evil involved.* !! " That was his breakthrough after thinking about this context "again and again". Thus to describe these *two kinds of good and evil* Pirsig explains.. "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, the moral force of the priests, emerges in the wake of Dynamic Quality. It is old and complex. It always contains a component of memory. Good is conformity to an established pattern of fixed values and value objects. Justice and law are identical. Static morality is full of heroes and villains, loves and hatreds, carrots and sticks. Its values don't change by themselves. Unless they are altered by Dynamic Quality they say the same thing year after year. Sometimes they say it more loudly, sometimes more softly, but the message is always the same." I'm not arguing for just a Dynamic understanding dmb. I'm merely pointing out that there is both a static point of view and a Dynamic understanding of the MOQ and depending on which you value will determine what you see as good and what you see as evil.. > dmb: > The trick is to try to figure where you went wrong. This is going to demand a > focus on the relation between DQ and sq. We could also call this the relation > between the mystical perspective and the intellectual perspective.. Firstly, > it's easy to see that you're having trouble trying to present the > non-perspective perspective. There is no doubt that Pirsig is putting DQ at > the center of the MOQ. I don't think anyone is saying DQ doesn't exist and > nobody is denying that this centrality is key to Pirsig's expansion of > rationality but you seem to be quite confused as to how this all fits > together. The effect of your conclusion not only fails to improve and expand > intellectual static quality, it ends up being quite hostile to this aim. djh interjects: My conclusion includes hostility to intellectual static quality brought about by a Dynamic understanding but it also includes the good of intellectual static quality from a static quality point of view. Two very different values dmb - in the one Metaphysical system. This is the beauty of the MOQ. You can see one, but there is another good and evil outside of the quality which you are holding.. > dmb: > In an old essay at moq.org Ant answered the question, "how is Dynamic Quality > differentiated from static quality?".."Dynamic Quality is the term given by > Pirsig to the continually changing flux of immediate reality while static > quality refers to any concept abstracted from this flux". Dynamic Quality > "can only be understood properly through direct apprehension" and so "Dynamic > Quality can't be defined as such and that true understanding of it can only > be given through a mystic experience such as enlightenment." THAT is why "we > cannot intellectually talk about it" and that is why Pirsig can say that a > metaphysics of Quality is absurd. You can't talk about that which is prior to > language. You can't define the preintellectual source of all definable things > because talking requires definitions and philosophical talking requires > intellectual distinctions. This is the relationship that MUIST be understood > in order to understand the issue of degeneracy. As Herbert Guenther puts it > with respect to the "Ultimate" in Buddhism, DQ "is something knowable, though > not known by theory or discursive method, but by direct experience." This is > perfectly consistent with the things that Pirsig says in his books and > commentaries. In Lila's Child he says the MOQ itself is static and should be > kept separate from the Quality it talks about. Likewise, in a 1997 letter to > Ant, Pirsig says, "It's important to keep all 'concepts' out of Dynamic > Quality. Concepts are always static". Both books are full of similar lines. > Once they get into Dynamic Quality they'll overrun it and try to present it > as some kind of a concept itself. (For instance) I think it's better to say > that time is a static intellectual concept that is one of the very first to > emerge from Dynamic Quality. That keeps Dynamic Quality concept-free." This > is also perfectly consistent with Pragmatism and with the second aspect of > Mahayana Buddhism, wherein "it is emphasised that objects are only > conceptualised (or constructed) aspects of experience. This is basically what > the MOQ says from its Dynamic (or mystic viewpoint)." Did you catch that? > That's big. Objects aren't really objects but rather they are concepts > derived from experience. That's what Pirsig, James and Buddha are all saying > about static patterns. This is NOT a metaphysics of substance but a > metaphysics of Quality so that static patterns are just concepts, not things, > not pre-existing realities but aspects of an indeterminate experiential > reality that have been conceptualized. This is crucial to understanding the > switch from SOM to the MOQ. The MOQ doesn't completely reject subjects and > objects as CONCEPTS but as the metaphysical starting points of reality. The > trick is to realize that they are JUST concepts, to realize that they are > aspects of experience that have been conceptualized. As Ant put it,.. > "There are no objects or subjects as traditionally thought within the MOQ. > However, for pragmatic reasons it conceptualizes reality into four patterns > of static quality. ..However, both metaphysical systems are just ways of > conceptualising (or dividing) our experience and neither are necessarily more > truthful than the other. From a mystic point of view, to say quality patterns > are more truthful or false than subjects and objects is meaningless." djh: I agree with all that. > dmb: > This so-called "mystic" point of view is already expressed and represented in > the MOQ's theory of truth. Not only in the sense that truth is always > subordinate to intellectual quality and DQ but also in the sense of being > pragmatic, pluralistic, provisional and generally a helluva lot more > flexible. djh: The mystic point of view is represented in the MOQ - not the MOQ's 'theory of truth'. Truth is high quality static intellectual patterns. That's just about the only 'theory of truth' I know of. Furthermore truth isn't subordinate to intellectual quality. Truth is intellectual quality. All of these things are by definition static and thus not mystic. > dmb: > "If subjects and objects are held to be the ultimate reality," Pirsig says, > "then we're permitted only one construction of things - that which > corresponds to the 'objective' world." By contrast, the MOQ “does not insist > on a single exclusive truth," Pirsig says, and "one doesn't seek the absolute > 'Truth'. One seeks instead the highest quality intellectual explanation of > things with the knowledge that if the past is any guide to the future this > explanation must be taken provisionally; as useful until something better > comes along." On this view, truth and knowledge are not supposed to define > reality, which is indeterminate and undefinable. Truth and knowledge do not > exist in relation to a realm beyond our experiences, they do not correspond > to fixed and eternal realities. Instead, truth and knowledge are just > concepts, just human constructions derived from experience and they are > expected to grow and evolve just as we do. Just as Euclidian geometry isn't > truer than non-Euclidian geometries, just as polar maps aren't any less true > than regular maps, "saying that a MOQ is false and a SOM is true is like > saying that rectangular coordinates are true and polar coordinates are > false." This is what it means to have a pluralistic theory of truth. It does > NOT mean each person has their own truth. It means that "truth is a static > intellectual pattern within a larger entity called Quality". Truth is not > supposed to correspond to a determinate reality but rather it is convenient > within experience. Truth evolves along with our aims, purposes and problems… > See, it's not simply a matter of any and all static patterns being degenerate > and evil, not even from the higher perspective (mystical or pragmatic). I > mean, let us take account of the entire sentence, if not the broader context, > of your so-called evidence… "Dynamic Quality is the pre-intellectual cutting > edge of reality, the source of all things, completely simple and always new. > ...It's 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.".. See, this is why evolution > should be an important pivot point when talking about the meaning of > degeneracy in the MOQ. Degeneracy is devolution, is a kind of regression or a > blocking of evolution. djh: You say things like 'truth and knowledge are just concepts, just human constructions derived from experience and they are expected to grow and evolve just as we do.' But you never write about *how* they evolve just as we do. Things evolve as a result of the *conflict* between DQ and sq. > dmb: > The moral codes of the MOQ are designed to protect the ongoing evolutionary > process, right? That's WHY the intellectual level is the highest level of > static quality; because it is the most evolved and the most open to > evolution. This is especially true for Pirsig expanded notion of rationality. > So degeneracy has to be understood within the framework of this evolutionary > morality. Think of it as "un-generate". The word comes from Latin > "degeneratus", meaning ‘no longer of its kind,’ from the verb degenerare, > from degener ‘debased,’ from de- ‘away from’ + genus, gener- ‘race, kind.’ In > this case, the kinds we are talking about are levels of quality. As a verb, > it means "decline or deteriorate physically, mentally, or morally". As an > adjective it means the decline of disintegration of the physical, mental, or > moral qualities considered normal and desirable or lacking some property, > order, or distinctness of structure previously or usually present. It's a > kind of rot or decomposition or degradation. The code of art is NOT used to > condemn or prohibit intellectualism but to protect the evolution intellectual > static patterns themselves. Pirsig says this in both of his books...."I think > that it will be found that a formal acknowledgment of the role of Quality in > the scientific process doesn't destroy the empirical vision at all. It > expands it, strengthens it and brings it far closer to actual scientific > practice." (ZAMM, p. 281-2) "...the Metaphysics of Quality also says that > Dynamic Quality - the value-force that chooses an elegant mathematical > solution to a laborious one, or a brilliant experiment over a confusing, > inconclusive one - is another matter altogether. Dynamic Quality is a higher > moral order than static scientific truth, and it is as immoral for > philosophers of science to try to suppress Dynamic Quality as it is for > church authorities to suppress scientific method. Dynamic value is an > integral part of science. It is the cutting edge of scientific progress > itself." (LILA, p. 365-6).. By the same token, DQ is not supposed to be at > odds with philosophical discussion. As with science, Pirsig's metaphysics > contains "a formal acknowledgment of the role of Quality in the thinking > process itself. This is how rationality is expanded and strengthened. The > structure of the MOQ surrounds this expansion and goes with it but its this > acknowledgment that intellectual patterns exist within and are subordinate to > Quality that really makes the difference… And that's why anti-intellectualism > - as the MOQ construes intellect - no longer makes any sense. djh: How does the Code of Art in your words 'protect the evolution of intellectual patterns themselves'? How does it do that? You say that the Code of Art protects the intellectual patterns but you never say specifically how it does that… The answer to this question is.. The Code of Art protects the intellectual level thanks to the *conflict* between Dynamic Quality and static quality. Lila is nothing but a huge intellectual discussion of conflicting values. The two most fundamentally conflicting values in the MOQ are Dynamic Quality and static quality. This *conflict* is constantly mentioned in Lila: "Although the Dynamic brujo and the static priests who tortured him appeared to be mortal enemies, they were actually necessary to each other. Both types of people had to exist. If most of Zuni went around drunk and bragging and looking in windows, that ancient way of life could never have lasted. But without wild, disreputable outcasts like the brujo, ready to seize on any new outside idea and bring it into the community, Zuni would have been too inflexible to survive. *A tension between these two forces is needed to continue the evolution of life.*" .."What you see in New York depends on your static patterns, What makes the city Dynamic is the way it always busts up whatever those patterns are." It is the conflict between DQ and static quality that means they in your words.. 'grow and evolve just as we do.. This is what it means to have a pluralistic theory of truth. It does NOT mean each person has their own truth. It means that 'truth is a static intellectual pattern within a larger entity called Quality'. Truth is not supposed to correspond to a determinate reality but rather it is convenient within experience. Truth evolves along with our aims, purposes and problems…' Truth; intellectual *static* patterns of value change and 'evolve' *only* because of the *conflict* with DQ.. "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." and.. "The tribal frame of values that condemned the brujo and led to his punishment was one kind of good, for which Phaedrus coined the term 'static good.' Each culture has its own pattern of static good derived from fixed laws and the traditions and values that underlie them. This pattern of static good is the essential structure of the culture itself and defines it. In the static sense the brujo was very clearly evil to oppose the appointed authorities of his tribe. Suppose everyone did that? The whole Zuni culture, after thousands of years of continuous survival, would collapse into chaos.But in addition there's a Dynamic good that is outside of any culture, that cannot be contained by any system of precepts, but has to be continually rediscovered as a culture evolves. Good and evil are not entirely a matter of tribal custom. If they were, no tribal change would be possible, since custom cannot change custom. There has to be another source of good and evil outside the tribal customs that produces the tribal change." Custom cannot change custom. That's exactly what I'm saying. New customs or intellectual patterns will always be in conflict with current ones. Patterns cannot change patterns.. Without Dynamic Quality they will say the same thing over and over again.. "Unless they are altered by Dynamic Quality they say the same thing year after year. Sometimes they say it more loudly, sometimes more softly, but the message is always the same." 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
