Horse said to Harding:
...I have never stopped anyone talking about what is an integral part of
Quality. My objection is that it is lazy and dishonest to use DQ/Mystic status
as an excuse for sloppy thinking and poor reasoning. If you want to talk
intellectually about DQ then go ahead. You won't get very far because DQ cannot
be captured by the intellect. If you want to do the textual equivalent of
waving your hands about that's up to you...
Harding replied:
.... 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.
dmb says:
I think you're missing Horse's point and Pirsig's point. The Pirsig quote
supports what Horse is trying to tell you. Where Horse says "DQ cannot be
captured by the intellect," Pirsig says "Dynamic understanding is a logical
contradiction". The intellect is subordinate to DQ in the moral hierarchy but
more than that. DQ is prior to intellect, outside of language, and
pre-conceptual in such a way that there is no such thing as a "Dynamic
understanding". This is for the simple reason that understanding is
intellectual and DQ is pre-intellectual experience. This experience can only be
known directly and cannot be put into words, cannot fit into concepts, cannot
be defined. It's NOT just a prohibited taboo. Given the meaning of Pirsig's
central terms, it's just plain impossible. If you have a dynamic understanding,
then it is not "understanding" in the usual sense of the word. It's the kind of
thing you could try to paint with allusions, allegories and metaphors but this
is a very
difficult thing, far more difficult than simply making sense in a philosophy
forum.
I think we should be extremely skeptical about anyone who claims to have a
mystical perspective or a dynamic understanding. It takes a real artist to
stake out a position that's logically impossible. It's far, far more likely
that the use of such phrases only betrays a misunderstanding of the key
concepts. I mean, the options on that are an earth-shattering genius or a
bumbling hack.
Horse said:
Thank you David, I'm glad to see that you support the aims of the MD forum -
that of intellectual quality as opposed to musings about the indefinable. There
is a time and a place for discussion of DQ, if members so choose, and I will
support it's inclusion on this list with the proviso that it is not used
inappropriately with the intention of either attempting to trash Intellect or
falsely claiming that 'DQ/Mystic' thinking or perspective or whatever trumps
intellect. This is pure bullshit and will be treated as such.
Harding replied to Horse:
...If someone comes onto this forum and values Dynamic Quality to the extent
whereby when one begins to talk intellectual static quality(context 2) with
them and they continually point to Dynamic Quality(context 1) - then this is
indeed a problem! The MOQ is static quality. When can you talk about the MOQ
or its levels if all you're interested in is Dynamic Quality?
Where I have a slight disagreement with you is that the DQ/Mystic thinking
*doesn't* trump intellect. According to the Code of Art - DQ *trumps*
intellect. The problems arise in this discussion though - when folks value
*exclusively* DQ to the point where when you want to talk intellectual values
they'll *continually* point to Dynamic Quality or how this perspective trumps
everything.
dmb says:
Yes, DQ trumps intellect. I'm pretty sure Horse would agree too. But there is
no such thing as DQ thinking or mystic thinking. Once you're thinking, you are
trading in static patterns.
Think of the menu metaphor used by James and Pirsig. DQ is the food, right? The
food is direct experience, the primary empirical reality, the immediate flux of
life. The menu is not food and it never can be used as food. The menu is just
metaphysics. It's a set of philosophical ideas and it is made of nothing but
static patterns; words, concepts, definitions, distinctions, etc..
I can tell you about what ate at the fabulous new restaurant in town and maybe
they even have a link to their online menu. But I can never ever provide you
with a sample of their food through an email exchange or any other kind of
conversation. To actually eat the food, you gotta go out and eat some for
yourself. It is simply impossible to feed anyone through a keyboard. And so it
is with mystical knowledge. You gotta go see for yourself. It is simply
impossible for a discussion group, no matter how awesome it is, to provide
anyone with a mystical perspective.
The MOQ is a form of philosophical mysticism and this point is pretty crucial,
I think, to understanding what that is. DQ (or Quality in his first book) is
the mystic reality. Since this mystic reality is outside of language (the point
all philosophical mystics agree upon), it seems pretty silly to claim to be
speaking for the mystical perspective. It's hard to take such a grandiose claim
seriously, especially when it's phrased in contradictory terms.
The two contexts that Paul Turner discusses in his paper, he says, are both
intellectual. It's about how the two books fit together. It patches together
the ghosts and analogies from ZAMM with the static patterns of value in LILA. I
mean, there's not a second mystical MOQ outside or separate from the MOQ we get
from Pirsig's written works. The Quality it talks about is outside the MOQ,
outside of philosophy and outside of language. So all we can do here is talk.
And all we can talk about is the MOQ, not Quality itself. Like the guy says,
Quality is not a metaphysical chess piece. We are here to play chess, so to
speak.
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
