Hello everyone
Thank you for the welcome back Roger, and thanks for drawing me back with
your 99% solution post. From your reply to my reply, I see we are very close
in our thinking, but perhaps we are approaching the problem from different
angles. Therefore please allow me to go back to your original post once
again and attempt to identify those differences as I see them.
Roger:
I started reflecting on the two distinct ways RMP uses
the term DQ. The first method is roughly defined as direct experience
(Platt's 'awareness'). DQ is the cutting edge of experience prior to
the
creation of patterns. The second type is the evolutionary direction
toward
greater freedom and away from static patterns. RMP also refers to the
Quality
Event, which is where DQ can turn into sq , and which creates subjects
and
objects. Isn't this just a broader version of direct experience
(broader in
that it can apply beyond biological experience/awareness)? He does try
to
synthesize the terms by mentioning that DQ is a "stream of QE's". To
furter
complicate, he refers to DQ as the "unmeasured phenomenal object" in
SODV.
Glove:
It seems to me that Dynamic Quality is an ambiguous term that can be used
in many correct ways. In his SODV paper, Pirsig uses Dynamic Quality to
designate the "outside" of Niels Bohr's unambiguously communicated
observations, as depicted in the diagram Pirsig drew, with the dotted circle
surrounding the entire observation, the outside of which represented the
"unmeasured phenomenal object". I believe the key word here is "ambiguous".
The Quality Event is not an ambiguous event, but rather it is a static,
unambiguous communication. The Quality Event may be derived from Dynamic
Quality but it is no longer ambiguous Dynamic Quality. Unambiguous
agreements have "changed" it into a concept.
Roger:
The problem then is with Pirsig using two terms (DQ and QE) for one
concept,
and in using one term (DQ) for three concepts (experience, freedom and
unmeasured objects). Rather than sort this out, I tried to start from
scratch
using Pirsig's metaphysics to explain reality with enhanced clarity.
Glove:
I don't see Pirsig's usage of Dynamic Quality in the same light that you
describe here, as per my paragraph above, although the ambiguous nature of
Dynamic Quality would seem to say to me that we are perhaps both right and
both wrong at the same time. The Quality Event is the "measured phenomenal
object" lying inside the dotted circle of Pirsig's diagram, while Dynamic
Quality could be said to be the "unmeasured phenomenal object" lying outside
the dotted circle. However, it must also be recognized that Dynamic Quality
also lies within the circle as well. It is simply our unambiguously held
agreements that cause us to ignore it altogether, and shove it, so to speak,
completely out of the picture so that no ambiguity remains in our minds.
Dynamic Quality is not a concept, for concepts are unambiguous agreements.
Dynamic Quality is ambiguous in that as soon as we form an agreement as to
what "it" is, "it" is no longer that which we have named it as. The Quality
Event, on the other hand, is a concept, created by unambiguous agreement
between us and the environment we find ourself in. Take a cup for example. A
cup is simply a cup. The Quality Event of cup is completely unambiguous,
whereas what lies outside of cup is ambiguously, phenomenally unknown until
we agree that cup is here or there, that it holds this or that. That is the
Dynamic potential of cup. Cup itself remains unambiguously cup, though cup
has the ambiguous potential to hold tea, coffee, water, or to be in my hand,
on the table, in the cupboard. Yet no matter what it is holding or where it
is, cup is always just cup.
Roger:
The "evolving DQ" of RMP is clarified as a characteristic of a pattern, not
of
experience, but the experience is richer, and of higher quality. A
side
benefit of this methodology is that it doesn't run into the problems
with
differentiating DQ from pure chaos. Freedom, which Pirsig attaches
incorrectly
to experience, is also clarified. Freedom is not a property of
experience, it
is a property of a pattern of experiences. Freedom is not a direct
experience,
it is the freedom of experience. Patterns are evolving toward higher
complexity and higher degrees of freedom. Experience is evolving
toward
richer, higher value. Everything is evolving to higher quality.
Glove:
>From my ponderings on this, it is my opinion that Dynamic Quality cannot be
said to evolve. It is the static quality patterns of value making up our
reality that evolve towards Dynamic Quality, perhaps, but our concept of
evolution is a static quality pattern of value in itself, as all concepts
are. It may well be that Dynamic Quality evolves as well, or it may be that
"it" doesn't, but there is no way we can ever say either way with
unambiguous certainty, for Dynamic Quality is ambiguous. It seems to me that
that is why we all "know" what Quality is, yet no one can define it.
Roger:
Glove, please try to find the slightest glimmer of truth to what I am
saying.
It may not be there (the truth), but I want you to promise me that you will
try. We can always go back to the well charted coast together, but I want
you
to at least test these waters with me. Okay????? Please????
Glove:
I will do my very best Roger, I can promise you that. Perhaps this email is
a start and we can continue to build upon it. Let me know what you think.
And thanks for listening!
Best wishes,
Dan (glove)
MOQ Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:54 BST