PART. 1. Hi David, all, Well, I raised the conceptual point (as the first of two points, the second of which has been quietly ignored) because it seemed to me that if Pirsig's understanding of Quality/DQ/SQ was - shall we say - loosely worded, then that would have a significant bearing on what you want to talk about (which we all want to talk about too).
Mark 12-4-04: The Metaphysics of Quality talks about Quality by using two terms: Dynamic Quality and Static Quality. You may think of this as a hierarchy in the following way: 1. Quality. Cannot be discussed and fatal to indicate. Final. This is the Plotinian and unnamed Tao way of going about it. Very hard to do, especially for people like yourself who enjoy analysis. The MoQ does not talk about Quality either. 2. DQ. Now we have left off not talking about that which we cannot talk about and begun talking. Here, DQ is the unconceptualised, as you appear to understand. 3. SQ. Fill your boots in the talking dept. >From the above you should not even be using Quality at all. But you do, and that is unfortunate. I also think that it underlies much of the confusion that consistently defeats attempts to gain clarity about the different levels and the way that religion relates to the MoQ. Mark 12-4-04: You will notice that the MoQ uses two terms: DQ and SQ. Everything you need to say may be said using these two terms. The term Quality is not used in the MoQ. So all in all, I make no apology for raising conceptual questions. Mark 12-4-04: Quality is not a conceptual distinction from a Plotinian, unnamed Tao view. You should not use this term. If we can't gain further clarity about what we're talking about - and for sure, the issues raised cut to the very heart of the MoQ which is what you claim to want to talk about - then there's not much point in having this discussion at all. Mark 12-4-04: You will notice that the MoQ uses two terms: DQ and SQ. Everything you need to say may be said using these two terms. The term Quality is not used in the MoQ. The understanding that I object to came to the fore again in your post. You said: "The true nature of reality is undivided. That's the pre-intellectual cutting edge of experience." Mark 12-4-04: One cannot talk about the true nature of reality at all. Whenever you approach it 'you' are assimilated. Logically, 'you' cannot be what 'you' think 'you' are and be assimilated simultaneously. I use the term, 'Assimilated' as a metaphor. As I understand the MoQ there are three elements: Quality, Dynamic Quality and Static Quality. Mark 12-4-04: No. The MoQ uses two terms. Quality here is Plotinian - don't even mention it. Quality is (the mystical) reality. Mark 12-4-04: Mystical reality, which cannot be spoken of, like Plotinus for example recommends. (see hierarchy above). Dynamic Quality is the pre-intellectual cutting edge of reality Static Quality is the pattern of value that dynamic quality leaves in its wake Mark 12-4-04: Together, these two terms form the basis of the MoQ. If you stick to these then you may talk, talk, talk away! So in terms of how we can understand and explain our experience (experience being the basic 'stuff' of reality - and the MoQ being a variant of empiricism) what we have are: our static patterns (eg our accumulated language); Mark 12-4-04: Lots of talking may be done here. our 'dim apprehensions of things too obscure for its existing language' which is DQ; Mark 12-4-04: Very good. and we also have all those things which we don't have any comprehension or intimation of whatsoever - the totally unknown and unknowable. Mark 12-4-04: You are slipping that term 'Quality' into the MoQ again. The MoQ only uses two terms: DQ and SQ. Using DQ to indicate, "those things which we don't have any comprehension or intimation of whatsoever - the totally unknown and unknowable" is conceptually acceptable because it is logically coherent; it is logically coherent to postulate DQ without conceptualising it. DQ is concept free. The reason why DQ and Quality need to be distinguished is because if they are identified then the MoQ collapses into solipsism, Mark 12-4-04: This statement is misleading. Solipsism is a problem for materialists and idealists who advocate a substance based metaphysics or ontology, but the MoQ is a value based metaphysics and a process ontology. Processes flow in a value continuum in the MoQ making arguments for solipsism largely redundant. Your arguments Sam appear to have the rather interesting feature of beginning from a position which has little to do with the MoQ. I should like everyone to make a very clear note of this for future reference. in other words, MY appreciation of DQ is not contextualised by my static patterns that have led me to this point; Mark 12-4-04: A number of points must be noted here: 1. There is no 'you' in the MoQ. This term, while pragmatic, is sloppy. If one enquires into what 'you' means one is lead to either; A. A substance which relies on God for its support. B. A 'self' which is the constant observer of reality. But in a value metaphysics and a process ontology, these constructions depend upon a relationship between patterns of quality and DQ. That relationship may be described as 'coherent.' So, 'you' are a coherent relationship between patterns of Quality evolving in an event stream towards DQ. 2. 'Your' experience actually IS 'a coherent relationship between patterns of Quality evolving in an event stream towards DQ' in a larger coherent relationship with ALL 'coherent relationships between patterns of Quality evolving in an event stream towards DQ.' I should like to repeat the following: Your arguments Sam appear to have the rather interesting feature of beginning from a position which has little to do with the MoQ. no, my appreciation of DQ is a direct appreciation of all that there is. Mark 12-4-04: This statement has been rendered inadequate from an MoQ perspective (see above). MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_focus/ MF Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from moq_focus follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/mf/subscribe.html
