Re: LS Dynamic and static

From: RISKYBIZ9@aol.com
Date: Sun May 16 1999 - 16:38:34 BST


ROGER ASKS SOME QUESTIONS AND THROWS OUT SOME OBSERVATIONS

Good Day, Everyone in Lila Land

I (Roger) was concerned that the thread was starting to die out, but Kev and
Diane and others have thrown in some new and interesting issues. Allow me to
reenter and help "stir up the pot." Below are some questions based on their
posts for everyone that is in the squad, especially for the lurkers that have
dropped into the background.

IS SQ ILLUSORY?

My views on the DQ/sq relationship closely mirror most of Kevin's. Below is a
great quote from his recent post that I hope can launch further discussion.

<<<<
Dynamic Quality is Everything. Alternatively, there isn't anything Dynamic
Quality isn't. Although Pirsig divides Quality into Dynamic and static
categories - all static quality is illusory and false. All that is, is ONE
- all separations are false. I have tried to communicate this to many
members in many different ways for if we don't accept this then Pirsig's
whole metaphysics falls apart.>>>>>>

I agree with what he has said with perhaps one slight modification....I
wouldn't say sq is "false". DQ is pure experience, the direct experience that
precedes and creates the patterns later labeled "self" and "the world". In
SOM terms, if DQ was a quantum instant, sq would be a second or a minute, or
an hour or a day. Sq is a patterned abstraction of reality.

If DQ was pure sound, then sq would be the note, the melody, the chorus, the
song and the singer. Of course, DQ is not an instant or a sound, but I find
the analogy helpful. Where it gets more convoluted is that thinking is
experiece as well. Thinking about a song, or about an hour is a form of
experience. But the thought of thinking is sq, but the thinking of the
thought that was thunk is Dq, but......This is where we get self referential
loops of intellectual complexity, and further supports Pirsig and Kevin's
contentions that the intellect takes us away from DQ, not toward it.

I agree with Kevin that everything is DQ. Sq is just a term thrown on
particular abstractions of experience. Sq and non sq is one way to cut an
abstract metaphysics, subject and objects is another way. But ALL IS GOOD in
the MOQ, let us make no mistake about it.

What are YOUR thoughts on the relationship between DQ and sq?

BE A PATH
Again, I would reinforce Kev's comments to John on choosing a path. Kevin
wrote:

" The pursuit of
Dynamic Quality involves the quest to unify reality, to break down the
separations, to transcend static quality and unite with the Oneness of
Reality"....and....
"the picture in your
mind of one limited man in front of ten thousand different paths is flawed
- there is only one path and you aren't just travelling the path - you are
the path."

I was trying to make some similar points with my algae story. Again in SOM
terms, Quality and good is defined by what we are and what we are is
influenced by what we value. The path chosen defines us, because we are the
path.

What are YOUR thoughts on this imagery? Are we created out of experience,
are we the path and the journey, or are we travelers along an objective road?
 

Roger

PS -- Several early posters with the mystical and experiential slant set a
pattern on the discussion that is very different from the opinions prevalent
in last Fall's topic on DQ. Those of you that think this pattern is mistaken
should jump in now. It will be fun!

MOQ Online - http://www.moq.org



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jan 17 2002 - 13:08:43 GMT