roger,
thank you for your detailed response. i've only read through your post
once, picking up about half of what you wrote. i didn't think to
consult lila for clarification (though i guess i should have since this
seems to primarily be a forum for moq). allow me to test my
understanding of your post and apply it to my dilemma.
> Roger:
> The problem with your issue is complicated because Pirsig supplemented and
> improved his metaphysics after ZMM. Instead of Romantic and Classic, he went
> to the terms Dynamic and Static. Much of his writing on the former terms
> carries right over to the latter, but not all of it.
though it has been over three years since i read lila (and only once at
that), not everything about it is fresh; however, i do recall with great
feelings of joy, the dynamic/static classifications of the Quality
experience. at the time, it explained a lot about my own experiences.
i think a lot of what the explanation in zmm/lila deals with is
dependent on analogues. if i remember correctly, the example pirsig
uses in lila to demonstrate this is music (i recall the "echo" example
as well). this is mere speculation, but here we appear to have the
"new" experience in a "new" song whose analogues are other songs,
genres, performers, etc. the "matching" of these analogues to the song
involves a new assimilation and usage of static experiences. this
"matching" is dynamic experience (right?) [pirsig doesn't use
experience and quality synonomously, does he?]
it is the repetition of the experience of the new song that "causes" the
song to lose its dynamic experience and change into a static
experience-- the formerly unknown experience now matched with prior
analogues, becoming an analogue itself.
> According to the MOQ, Dynamic Quality is pre-intellectual reality or Pure
> Experience. Our understandings , including "a priori conditions" and
> "romantic understanding" are patterns of static quality. However, I think it
> could be argued that "pre-intellectual understanding" is another term (albeit
> a sloppy one) for Pure Experience itself. (Pirsig's "preintellectual
> awareness" is a better term). In the same sense, if Romantic understanding is
> defined as pre-intellectual awareness, my above statement that it is a static
> pattern would be wrong. Have I confused you?
yes, but in a good way. dynamic quality, as i have muddled through it
above, would encompass the entire "first experience"-- beginning with
the inital sense experience (for the song example, hearing), initiating
the "time lag," leading to the recognition of the a priori condition
(analogues), accompanied by some sort of memory-matching response ("have
i heard that song before?"), and ending with the recognition of the
sense experience as a song that i have never heard before that i enjoy.
i guess what you're saying above is that static quality (a priori,
analogues, patterns, etc.) is what is known; dynamic quality is that
which has previously NOT been experienced (or not realized as
experience? must it be "new"?). we assess experiences based on what we
know, our previous experiences. as a result, we either have had the
experience before or we have not (i'm sure there is a "mu" option
somewhere in there!).
> Let me try again. That which is understood is a static pattern.
> Understanding is a form of Dynamic Experience. Understanding and thinking
> are part of the preintellectual Present. Thoughts and
> that-which-is-understood are abstractions derived from that experience.
this i understand even less. perhaps i stated this in differnt terms
above. let me see if i can equate some terms:
dynamic experience = pre-intellectual experience = present =
romantic understanding
so the experience of the "groovie" would be an experience of the
present. does it have to be a "new" experience to be a dynamic
experience? or is any experience both dynamic experience
(pre-intellectual experience/recognition) and, later, static experience
(intellectual experience/recognition)?
> Roger:
> I would say that "reality recognized" is not the full reality. It is a
> patterned concept of the true unpatterned Dynamic Quality. On the other hand,
> "recognizing" is a name for a particular experience. The experience of
> recognizing is preintellectual, but the recognition is a static pattern. It
> gets kind of confusing, but as an analogy, I have used the example of
> shouting in a canyon. If the pure experience is the initial sound, the
> static patterns are like the echoes. They are faint distortions of the
> original experience, but they are themselves experience as well. I don't know
> if this analogy works, or just confuses things further....let me know.
again, it does and it doesn't. the dynamic experience (sense, time lag,
analogues) leads to recognition. once recognition takes place the
experience is static (its patterns are now analogues). this makes
sense; however, this produces two additional questions:
(1) how does pirsig explain the influence of time in this explanation?
i recall that he does in lila, but i can't remember how. don't feel
compelled to type out a long answer . . . i don't expect you to do my
research. but i do want to understand. what draws me to this question
is the song analogy: the song is still great the second and third time
but becomes less dynamic with each experience until finally it is no
longer exciting (though it is recognized as being Quality, just a
different kind). is that patterns become entrenched?
(2) how does such an explanation include john sutherland and robert
deweese-- men of art? is it that art is an immediate experience?
pirsig sees to classify them as people who are primarily using a
romantic understanding of the world. how would pirsig classify them in
lila (i don't think they'd be the guys in the docked boat who "devalue"
lila herself).
> Roger:
> I know absolutely nothing about composition pedagogy, but I would venture to
> say that the MOQ's position is that experience or Quality creates subjects
> and objects. A composition is created by the cumulative patterns of quality
> that can be sorted in 4...no, in 5 orders. These patterns themselves are
> derived from Pure Experience itself.
are these 5 orders documented in lila? gotta page number? actually,
there's nothing much to composition pedagogy (or the scientific method
for that matter) other than common sense. i mean, if you understood
what phaedrus did in the classroo at MSC, then you have a basic feel for
composition instruction. yes, as an intellectual process, you have the
subject/object division (like in the second metaphysical hierarchy in
zmm) when the composition is revised and edited (i.e., evaluating the
pastwriting experience, anticipating future reaction), but, the reason
why pirsig uses the teaching of composition as a scene in zmm, i think,
is to show how (in his three areas of human knowledge-- art, religion,
and science) rhetoric, as an art (techne) unifies subject and object as
well (the [dynamic/romantic] experience of when composition occurs
without concerns of spelling, unity, etc.). it is really no different
than motorcycle maintenance or any other activity where an individual is
in union with the object (the essay) at hand (the present).
i could explain more but i am afraid it may get tedious and boring
(though i am happy to share if you are interested).
i will reread your post some more. thanks for the w. james reference.
i'll put it at the top of my "to read" list.
i'm afraid, though, that if i go too deep into explaining this "fissure"
by using lila that i may increase the length and scope of my thesis
(perhaps a footnote will [inadequately] do). would you have a problem
if i used your response as a source (you'd be properly cited)? i'm not
for certain that i will, but it is nice to have that as an option (i
just need to get this damn thing done; i'm starting not to CARE! and
that's not good).
your responses (and anyone else's) are much appreciated (and thoroughly
enjoyed).
jamie
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:07 BST