Re: MD The final solution or new frustration.

From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Wed Oct 01 2003 - 18:35:16 BST

  • Next message: Sam Norton: "Re: MD The Allegory of Pirsig"

    Hi Guys

    How about listening to classical music,
    I often find that I do not enjoy a difficult
    work until I have heard it many times, then
    I can 'hear it' and really appreciate its quality.
    It seems to me that intelligence is involved here,
    that intelligence requires static patterns to grasp
    reality/quality in its full or fuller complexity, that
    static patterns enable us to grasp quality in a richer
    way, and yet back to the dynamic quality of listening
    to a familiar music work. It seems that the relationship
    between SQ/DQ is more complex than some of you are
    suggesting.

    Regards
    David Morey

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Platt Holden" <pholden@sc.rr.com>
    To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 1:58 PM
    Subject: Re: MD The final solution or new frustration.

    > Scott,
    >
    > > > Platt,
    > > > Intellect (thinking) is not a response to DQ. Thinking is the
    > > > patterning of pure experience (Quality) into static symbolic forms.
    > > > What responds to DQ is not intellect but a vague sense of something
    > > > better. One's initial reaction to great art (or getting off a hot
    > > > stove) isn't intellectual. It's immediate, involuntary, instinctive,
    > > > intuitive, visceral, spontaneous. Thinking about experience is
    > > > secondary. Thinking about thinking is even further removed from DQ.
    >
    > Scott:
    > > ????. Apparently, the fourth and highest level of SQ is the furthest
    > > removed from DQ. Something's backwards.
    >
    > Platt:
    > If you think being a mindless lion is better than being a mindful
    > human, then I'd suggest you have something backwards. The creative
    > force of DQ makes for higher quality patterns. A pattern with the
    > ability to think is better than a pattern that can't. It's better for
    > doctor to kill a germ than a germ to kill a doctor. It's better to
    > think independently than to simply regurgitate a party line.
    >
    > Scott:
    > > You did not respond to my analysis of the hot stove example.
    > > Apparently
    > > you think that it is the " immediate, involuntary, instinctive,
    > > intuitive, visceral, spontaneous" that is response to DQ. I see these
    > > (except perhaps "intuitive") as all static responses. The Dynamic is
    > > found when one can overcome these reflexes, when one is supremely
    > > mindful -- that is, operating on the intellectual level. What you seem
    > > to value sounds very New Age-y to me.
    > >
    > > As I said to Paul, why don't we all get lobotomies? True, we couldn't
    > > create great art, but it seems we would be much closer to DQ, by
    > > adopting this outlook.
    >
    > Platt:
    > Maybe you can explain the passage in Chp. 9 of Lila where Pirsig talks
    > about DQ in relation to a baby of which the following is a brief
    > excerpt:
    >
    > "From the baby's point of view, something, he knows not what, compels
    > attention. This generalized "something,' Whitehead's "dim
    > apprehension,' is Dynamic Quality."
    >
    > Not "supremely mindful" would you say? If you'll review what Pirsig
    > says about the nature of DQ in Ch.9 (the song, the heart attack, the
    > baby) you'll see that "mindful" has nothing to do with it--until after
    > the event.
    >
    > As for DQ being a "static response," you're right in the sense that we
    > know the quality of an experience before thinking about it:
    >
    > "When the person who sits on the stove first discovers his low-Quality
    > situation, the front edge of his experience is Dynamic. He does not
    > think, "This stove is hot," and then make a rational decision to get
    > off. A "dim perception of he knows not what" gets him off Dynamically.
    > Later he generates static patterns of thought to explain the
    > situation." (5)
    >
    > Call it a biological reflex if you wish. I know of nothing in the MOQ
    > that suggests our response to Quality (experience) is supernatural.
    >
    > Finally, I'm I right in assuming you believe in Berkeley's philosophy
    > of idealism?
    >
    > Platt
    >
    >
    >
    > 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 : Wed Oct 01 2003 - 18:36:08 BST