From: Paul Turner (paul@turnerbc.co.uk)
Date: Wed Jan 12 2005 - 10:54:05 GMT
Hi Matt
Please be aware that I'm just putting some thoughts out here in the
interests of open dialogue and maybe leaving Kant behind.
Matt said:
If Quality is reality
And Quality is experience
Then experience is reality.
If static patterns are mediated reality
And Dynamic Quality is unmediated reality
Paul:
I don't think mediated/unmediated is a good distinction. It suggests
that a third metaphysical entity is in there doing the mediating rather
than a process, i.e., static latching. My preferred distinction is
undifferentiated/differentiated which I think is also more descriptive
and meaningful to what the MOQ is talking about. This may prevent
problems later.
Matt said:
And Dynamic Quality is better than static patterns
Then unmediated reality is better than mediated reality.
Paul:
The first thing about this statement is that it is more that Dynamic
Quality is 'betterness' itself, rather than - "is better than static
patterns." The statement that "this is better than that," to me, is more
applicable to static quality in which things can be defined by such
fixed relationships.
So I think that the statement, "getting better is better than staying
the same" is more appropriate, albeit more than a little tautological.
The second thing is that, if you accept my modification of your terms,
then the statement becomes, "undifferentiated reality is better than
differentiated reality." In this sense one may say that any response to
undifferentiated reality is better because undifferentiated reality is
simple, unambiguous and direct and will 'provoke' a simpler and direct
response. (The martial arts 'technique' of Bruce Lee comes to mind
here.) By hitting value dead on there is no confusion and no comparative
reflection about what to do. The Quality of the action, with the right
patterns to support it, may result in the latching of new and better
patterns to be repeated in future behaviour. Anyway, this isn't getting
at what you want. Back to the skeptic.
Matt said:
If unmediated reality is better than mediated reality, then how do we
know
when we are apprehending unmediated reality?
How do we know when we are Dynamic, when we are following Dynamic
Quality?
Paul:
Again, changing unmediated to undifferentiated may make things a little
clearer. Undifferentiated experience, which is pure value, is absolutely
certain, like the pain of a hard punch in the nose. It leaves nothing in
your awareness other than "it." I have thought that, in a way, Dynamic
Quality is that experience of which you are completely sure of but as
soon as you reflect on what you are completely sure of that is no longer
it because reflection entails differentiation.
Another thought is that when you say "how do we know?" you are referring
to one type of knowing which is not good for Dynamic Quality. This
extract from Pirsig's AHP lecture is relevant here:
"Two words came up to me that I learned in German class long ago; they
are the words "kenntnis" and "wissenschaft." Both words mean "to know."
We use the word in English, "to know," the same way. The two meanings of
"kenntnis" and "wissenschaft" are "to know as one would know one's own
mother's face," that's "kenntnis." "Wissenschaft" would be "to know as
one knows Mesopotamian history." To us they are just both forms of
"knowing" but in German I am told that they are very different and that
they are regarded as two entirely different entities. As different as
blue and green or as different as ice and snow which the Hindi language
confuses as one word.
It then occurred to me that quality is not easily understood by
wissenschaft, the knowledge by which you understand ancient history, but
you can understand it so quickly through kenntnis, by acquaintance,
because you don't even have to think about it. So this very interesting
split is one which divides on the word "quality." Quality you can know
by kenntnis. You say it's good - "yeah it's great, I like it" - you
don't have to think about it, you don't have to analyse it, you don't
have to sit down. But if you say "why do you like it? Give me the
specific reasons, lay out your framework for understanding it," you'll
find that it is a very, very difficult task."
So, I think our skeptic may be asking for one kind of knowledge when it
is best understood by another. This isn't to say that Dynamic Quality is
just anything that is recognised through kenntnis, but, as a starting
point, does the skeptic accept that the German's are happy to
distinguish two types of knowing? Or is he skeptical of this, too?
Matt said:
How do you establish criteria for determining which is which, criteria
that
will satisfy the skeptic?
Paul:
I guess you talk to him and find out what type of criteria he is looking
for. If he is talking about "laboratory standard" criteria then I would
try to convince him that reality is not just that which shows up in
laboratories. To do this I could offer to swap my bicycle for his
Porsche if he couldn't find the difference in value between them with a
laboratory instrument.
At the AHP conference, Leland Baggett, the guy who invited Pirsig to
speak, set up a practical exercise to demonstrate the difference between
static and Dynamic Quality to the audience. It was quite simple, he
alternated between common tasks/activities (such as asking each other
three questions about themselves) and unexpected ones (such as asking
someone the question they would least expect in a million years) leaving
no time for forethought and deliberation. This got people to just 'see'
the difference in their experience between operating from patterned
behaviour to operating spontaneously when put on the spot. The exercise
contrasted the experiences in such a way as to bring the differences to
awareness.
Matt said:
The trick is, I think about half of Pirsig denies any attempt to give
the
skeptic an answer (and there are plenty of ways in Pirsig which suggest
that
we don't have to answer him), but its the other half that bothers me:
the
half that seems to demand the raising of the question.
Paul:
I think you are really hung up about this phantom skeptic but I'll play
the game anyway.
Matt said:
Why does Pirsig not need to answer the skeptic when the determination of
good and evil, better and worse, hinges on distinguishing between static
patterns and Dynamic Quality?
Paul:
Actually that's not true. Good/evil and better/worse in the MOQ system
of ethics are to a large extent defined within the distinction between
levels of patterns.
Regards
Paul
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries -
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 12 2005 - 11:00:27 GMT