> 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 ve ry > 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.
djh responds: I agree with all that dmb, except for the part where you think I'm 'missing the point' . I did miss the point and I responded to Horse saying as much. Anyway - my favorite line of yours above is that "it takes a real artist to stake out a position that's logically impossible". I've tried but I couldn't put it better myself. Oh I also disagree though that 'it's far, far more likely that the use of such phrases only betrays a misunderstanding of the key concepts.' I think using phrases such as a 'Dynamic understanding', are very important to the MOQ and do not portray a misunderstand of the key concepts.. > 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 myst icism 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 metaphysic al chess piece. We are here to play chess, so to speak. djh responds: Yeah, agree with all that too.. 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
