Re: MD Epigrams on Quality

From: Steve & Oxsana Marquis (marquis@nccn.net)
Date: Mon Apr 04 2005 - 12:33:50 BST

  • Next message: Arlo J. Bensinger: "Re: MD Schiavo"

    Platt writes:
    _______________________

    You'll recall Pirsig hesitated to create a new metaphysics because it would
    violate the mystic understanding of reality that doesn't require the
    divisions necessary for thought. In fact, thinking, according to mystics,
    takes you away from, not closer to, reality. But, Pirsig decided to do a
    metaphysics anyway, and in order to do it, he had to divide "indivisible"
    Quality.
    _______________________

    Sure.

    Platt:
    _______________________

    Pirsig's paragraph above, and my epigrams, point to indivisible Quality
    before the division into Dynamic and static. That's why I called them
    "pre-metaphysical."

    We may be more fascinated with DQ than SQ. But to think that's so requires
    previously cutting Quality into two parts.
    _______________________

    I just don't see any difference functionally between Q and DQ. To talk
    about experience prior to parsing we can only talk about the Whole
    (undifferentiated Reality). Now this Wholeness includes all constituents by
    definition of being whole. So no matter what patterns we choose to pay
    attention to with articulate thought those patterns and as well as ourselves
    are still part of this Whole.

    To talk about a specific pattern requires a definition, a separating out.
    This pattern, this definition, is separate from what? Well, we must have a
    label, so we say Q-pattern=DQ. Now we've got our definition. But DQ, no
    matter which or how many static patterns of value we separate out with our
    attention, doesn't seem to change much does it? The only access to DQ that
    I see is exactly the same direct experience that provides access to Q to
    begin with. Whether we talk about the ten thousand things or not the Tao
    remains the Tao. DQ is a necessary fiction to allow our mind to parse, and
    still maintain undifferentiated Quality as reality, that's all IMO.

    So, the claim of enchantment with DQ to the detriment of attention to sq I
    made earlier can be applied without change to enchantment with
    undifferentiated Q. The psychological symptoms are exactly the same. We
    prefer the mysterious to the concrete and / or we wish to move to a realm
    that does not require justification (only static patterns of value can be
    rationally or empirically verified by another).

    In all fairness to you Platt, I thought you did mean DQ and you've cleared
    that up. Your epigrams do include sq. Still, it seems to me we are
    venerating the ineffable a little too much. That is what came across. This
    is somewhat like the charge against Pirsig when he first came up with the
    Quality idea. Quality cannot be defined so it cannot be critiqued. Nice
    move. To continue with my 'Rigel' impersonation, it is all too easy to run
    to the mysterious as an escape.

    To keep things in perspective both for intellectual respectability as well
    as live a Quality (DQ+sq) filled life we need to also pay attention to
    static patterns of value. What saves that from looking like warmed over SOM
    is Pirsig's multiple truth approach as well as pointing to DQ as the other
    half of the theory when needed (or seeking it experientially). There's
    still a lot to be said for reasoning, it's just realizing we can apply the
    analytical knife however we choose. And that requires doing philosophy, not
    philosophology, to refer to my other post. MOQ is not opposed to reasoning,
    rather it frees up reasoning, removing it from its self-imposed prison of
    pre judgments. No matter how much meditation we do we still use reason to
    get to the toilet.

    OTOH, without Quality SOM, with its assumption of one truth, and ego is a
    deadly combination that leads to attachment to concept. Dynamic Quality is
    what keeps the mind clear (suspension of judgment) so reasoning can work
    properly. We paint a picture, then throw it away, and then paint another
    picture. It is the creative process of painting, not attachment to the
    picture, that's important. That's how I see it anyway.

    Live Well,
    Steve

    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 : Mon Apr 04 2005 - 13:04:29 BST