From: Phaedrus Wolff (PhaedrusWolff@carolina.rr.com)
Date: Thu Jan 13 2005 - 00:44:26 GMT
Dan:
I like this but at the same time it appears to me that, sometimes, the best
way to answer the skeptic is to keep silent. Anything said twists to mean
something else.
Chin)Here! Here! Especially if I say it. Most times it doesn't even make
sense to me. :o)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Glover" <daneglover@hotmail.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 3:53 PM
Subject: RE: MD Them pesky skeptics
> Hello everyone
>
> >From: "Paul Turner" <paul@turnerbc.co.uk>
> >Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
> >To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
> >Subject: RE: MD Them pesky skeptics
> >Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 10:54:05 -0000
> >
> >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.
>
> Dan:
>
> Hi Matt, Paul, Erin, all,
>
> I think the MOQ resists any attempt at defining Dynamic Quality. It seems
to
> me that Dynamic Quality is being positioned here by Matt and Paul as an
> opposite to static quality, which (of course) it is not.
>
> >
> >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.
>
> Dan:
>
> I think the problem here is with the term "reality." Once Dynamic Quality
> becomes real, it's no longer dynamic, so Dynamic Quality as
undifferentiated
> reality is a bit of a misnomer too, in my opinion.
>
> >
> >Matt said:
> >If unmediated reality is better than mediated reality, then how do we
> >know
> >when we are apprehending unmediated reality?
>
> Dan:
>
> It sounds as if you’re looking for a signpost showing the way. The problem
> as I see it is that signposts are static but the way is Dynamic.
>
> >
> >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?
>
> Dan:
>
> To answer Matt's question: The best way I know of is to ask oneself, is
this
> a Quality path I am on? Only you will know the answer (kenntnis). If the
> answer is no, then go a better way.
>
> >
> >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.
>
> Dan:
>
> I like this but at the same time it appears to me that, sometimes, the
best
> way to answer the skeptic is to keep silent. Anything said twists to mean
> something else.
>
> >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.
>
> Dan:
>
> Yes, I think that's right.
>
> Thank you for your comments,
>
> Dan
>
>
>
>
> 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 - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
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 - 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 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 13 2005 - 01:02:32 GMT