On Thu, 8 Oct 1998 13:58:02 -0500 clark
<clark@netsites.net> wrote:
> Hello Squad,
> So far I have missed all of the discussion on DQ but after reading my
> back mail I am compelled to stick in my two cents worth of wisdom.
> First, I think you should listen more closely to Anthony because I think
> that he has a pretty good slant on the SQ\DQ process.
Ken,
Many thanks for your kind comment.
Diana,
Many thanks for pasting my MOQ essay finally onto the LS
site; it's got a section concerning Dynamic Quality which
might interest newer members.
I also enjoyed your description of the lantern festival in
Hong Kong; I certainly like you better in your "romantic"
mode.
There's a couple of things about the ZMM romantic/classical
split which I will put my twopence worth's in. I never
liked the phrase Pirsig used that "Quality lies between the
subject and the object". Out of context, it sounds like
Quality is (completely) outside subjects and objects. They
are not. Subjects and objects are manifestations of
Quality.
I wish Pirsig had made this more clearer as it was
going to be another 17 years after the publication of
ZMM to know for certain what he meant by this ambiguous
term.
I was therefore also interested in Jonathan remarks:
> "Bo consistently belittles ZMM vs. Lila and regards this
> Romantic-Classic view as an abortive attempt to
> characterize Quality which was superseded by the DQ-SQ
> scheme. However, my rereading convinces me that this
> Romantic-Classic division is just as valid as it was when
> I first read it 22 years ago. What I now see though is
> that Pirsig had not yet recognized DQ, and thus his
> "leading edge" of reality is wrongly identified as RQ..."
Firstly, the Dynamic Quality of Lila is the Quality of ZMM.
Secondly, Pirsig (as far as I can ascertain) still thinks
at least half to two-thirds of ZMM is relevant to
understanding the MOQ. But the romantic-classic division
is NOT in this category. He explains in LILA that the
concepts "romantic quality" and "classic quality" have
limitations for reference for some aspects of reality that
the Dynamic/static split does not.
In LILA, Pirsig gives the example of the Native American's
"vision quest" which is simply not just a romantic nor just
a classical experience. There is also no sense of
cosmological evolution given in the romantic/classic split
so I doubt it is "completely consistent with the philosophy
he builds in Lila".
Finally, just to add to Diana's list of "Common mistakes"
> First to equate DQ with present experience is to say that
> DQ is all experience. This denys the experience of static
> quality.
I have elucidated the following theme before which seems to
me to be one of the most important KEYS in understanding
his metaphysics. There are two viewpoints given by Pirsig;
a mystic/Dynamic one and a static/conceptual one.
>From a Dynamic viewpoint (which takes priority) Dynamic
Quality is all experience; from a static (conceptual)
viewpoint Dynamic Quality is only part of the picture
hence its label (from Bohr) as the conceptually unknown.
On other words, it is the part of our experience that is
ineffable; the sublime; usually found in great moments of
wonder or relief.
To add to this (to use another favourite concept of mine)
reality is on a continuum from the totally
inexpressable/sublime (the static viewpoint's "Dynamic
Quality") such as a mystic experience to the nearly
completely expressable/everyday (the static viewpoint's
"static quality") such as a description of a plain chair.
However, it must be remembered that absolutely nothing is
really static or unchanging and hence the reason why
everything should be perceived ultimately as a
manifestation of Dynamic Quality. The plain chair
mentioned above is beyond complete description due to
this reason. By the time (and it would have to take some
time!) the complete description of it was given (e.g such
as the relative positioning of ALL its sub-atomic
particles) you'd have a different chair (for instance, the
sub-atomic particles would have moved). But, on the other
hand, there is a sense where sentinent beings can obtain a
better "handle" on some aspects of reality (such as the
plain chair) than others.
Now this isn't to say that static quality does not exist
at all; what it is saying is that Dynamic Quality has the
property in which some manifestations of it (i.e. static
quality) are open to understanding. The analogy of the
Buddhists "one and the many" also tries to get over this
MOQ perspective. This is also why Buddhists would not say
reality is monistic nor is it many (in the sense of
numerous independent) parts; reality is more subtle than
that.
Best regards everyone,
Ant.
"Potential without any means for realization might as well
not exist. SQ provides the context for DQ to be realised.
DQ on its own provides the driving force and overall
direction, while SQ patterns determine the destination.
It's like rain falling on a mountain. Gravity determines
that the water will run down the mountain, but the mountain
itself determines the precise route."
(Jonathan Marder, 11th October 1998.)
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:35 BST