Hi Dan,
thanks for your answer. It has been useful.
M
> >I'm pretty comfortable with "DQ is experience", while I have problems with
> >"Q is experience".
> >
> >Correct me if I'm wrong, but if Quality is Reality, it means that Quality
> >is "all there is". So, stating that Quality is experience, is like to say
> >that
> >experience is all there is. The result is that, according to the MOQ, there
> >should be a Dynamic experience and a static experience.... but, I have
> >problems
> >with such a concept. Actually, if experience is all there is, what is the
> >outcome of experience? Experience?
Dan
> I would say the outcome of experience is the same as the outcome of life. We
> all know what that is, I take it. I believe the MOQ is quite clear in
> stating Quality is experience. Also I believe it is quite clear in stating
> that which has no value does not exist. Quality is all there is. This seems
> very elemental and if we do not agree on such elemental principles I fail to
> see how we can discuss the MOQ in an intelligent fashion.
Marco
Please, allow me a bunch of clarifications. Actually, I obviously agree on
"Quality is all there is" and "which has no value does not exist". Only, I was
suggesting that experience (interaction/interevaluation) is the dynamic side of
reality, not the whole reality. You state:
Dan
> I don't think the MOQ says anything about 2 kinds of experience. If so, it
> would tend to be something like 2 streams of consciousness, which I believe
> Robert Pirsig wishes to avoid.
Marco
Oh yes, my statement was a "reductio ad absurdum". My thought was:
Quality, according to the MOQ, has a double nature: D and S, isn't it? So, if
experience and Quality are the same, we should split also experience, just like
Quality. But as I don't grasp the concept of a static experience, I can't equate
Quality and experience.
What I was failing to see, and saw it only after your message, is that actually
"experience" has a double meaning. In facts, as verb "experiencing" is the
dynamic process of interaction with reality (being part of the flow). As noun,
experience is the static outcome of experiencing (memory).
According to this point, I think we could well be in agreement (see below).
Going on with clarifications....
M
> >On the other hand, assuming that Reality (Quality) is a *sinolos* of DQ and
> >SQ,
> >and that DQ is experience, is IMO more productive. In this vision, real
> >things *interact* (so, they are DQ) and *exist* (so, they are SQ).
> >Simultaneously.
Dan
> I looked up *sinolos* but failed to find it in the online dictionary.
> I will
> assume it means that reality is something like a combination of Dynamic
> Quality and static quality. This is ok as long as we don't try and define
> Dynamic Quality. We may carefully define static quality, however. We do that
> by discovering what's better.
Marco
yes, sorry. *Synolos* (an not sinolos, as I wrote) is Greek, and it means "a
whole". We know that Aristotle splits reality into matter and form; but
really, he states that matter and form are coexisting in reality. Reality, he
holds, is a *synolos* of matter and form.... IMO, similarly, Pirsig does not
split reality in DQ and SQ, but, really, states that Reality is a *synolos* of
DQ and SQ.
And now, let's come to the heart of the reasoning:
M
> >The process can be seen from two different viewpoints:
> >
> >seen from the SQ viewpoint (like the self is), I experience reality (DQ+SQ)
> >by
> >means of a dynamic interaction: my dynamic side interacts with the dynamic
> >side of the reality I'm experiencing. DQ (the flow) is the sum of all the
> >dynamic sides of all things.
Dan
> I sense a real effort here at defining Dynamic Quality. The more we try and
> define Dynamic Quality the farther away it gets.
Marco
Well, I really don't see how my words can constitute a definition. Saying that
DQ is the dynamic side of reality is all but a definition. It's a tautology. At
the contrary IMO your words ("Dynamic Quality is simply what's better. That's
all"), although reasonable, are closer to a definition.
Anyway, the sense of my statement is this.
as:
a - there are no two DQs;
b - Reality is partly static and dynamic
c - I'm real, thus partly Dynamic and partly static
ergo:
my dynamic side is necessarily within the flow. Where else?
If there was a mistake in the above statement it is "DQ is sum of the D sides of
all things",
but more than a mistake it is a viewpoint, that was in the premise "seen from
the SQ / self viewpoint". Maybe "sum" is not a great term, hope however it's
clear what I'm meaning.
M
> >seen from the DQ viewpoint, DQ is a flow of experience that originates
> >static patterns.
Dan
> If you moved "of experience" behind the word "patterns" then your sentence
> would seem better to me.
And here I can agree. According to what I wrote above, I can change my whole
sentence to:
<<The process can be seen from two different viewpoints:
*seen from the SQ viewpoint* (like the self is), I interact with reality
(DQ+SQ): my dynamic side interacts with the dynamic side of the reality I'm
going to experience. DQ (the flow) is the sum of all the dynamic sides of all
things.
*seen from the DQ viewpoint* DQ is a flow of interactions that originates
static patterns of value, AKA "the experience(d)" >>.
Let me know,
Marco
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:27 BST