ROGER LEADS OFF WITH SOME DEFINITIONS
Our assignment:
"With reference to the examples given in LILA, explain dynamic and static
quality and the relationship between them."
We pursued a similar path in the sister forum about 45 days ago called "The
99 % Solution." My most crucial learning was that I found it was essential
that everybody define their terms, especially relative to the other concepts.
This is somewhat impossible to do with DQ, but we need to at least
understand each other to make any progress in a discussion. So here are my
definitions of Quality, DQ and sq. I suggest each member clarify themselves
immediately as well.
QUALITY -- We must first start with this term. Sq and DQ are Pirsig's
divisions of Quality. Pirsig actually first defines Quality on page 73 (Teal
Bantam paperback):
"Quality is a direct experience prior to intellectual abstractions." and
"Quality is indivisible, undefinable and unknowable in the sense that there
is a knower and a known....."
Pirsig also states:
"Quality is not a thing. It is an event. It is the event at which the
subject becomes aware of the object....The quality event is the cause of the
subjects and objects, which are then mistakenly presumed to be the cause of
the Quality."
In summary, Quality is the stream of experience. This stream of immediate
experience is reality. (This sounds solipsistic, but it is not)
STATIC QUALITY -- This term refers to concepts applied to reality. Sq is a
pattern of experience. It is derived from experience. It includes subjects,
objects , and even events.
A "table" for example, is a consistent pattern of experience. Hard. Brown.
Flat. Smooth. "I" am also a derived from experience. I am a pattern of
analogous experiences. I do not experience. I am derived and created by
experience.
Sq is not reality. It is concepts applied to reality. It is divided reality.
DYNAMIC QUALITY -- Okay, now we get to the hard part. Why? Because:
1) It is undefinable. It is not a concept.
2) Pirsig's definition of DQ does not appear as a subset of Quality. He uses
the terms basically interchangeably, but never clearly explains their
relationship to each other. My take on it is that DQ is Pirsig's "real"
undefinable Quality, and that sq is a conceptual overlay. DQ is the real
terrain, and sq is a conceptual map of this reality. I will try to clean up
this overlay later.
3) Pirsig combines two different concepts under DQ. First is "The continually
changing flux of immediate reality", or "the cutting edge of experience"
which looks identical to his definition of Quality,and the second concept is
something that "patterns evolve toward or pursue". I find these two usages as
either confusing, or ,more likely, as confused. That was why we called the
thread "the 99% solution", because we were taking Pirsig up on his challenge
that he has only discovered 1% of the MOQ and that he was looking to the
squad and others to take it further. I am convinced that this second
tacked-on version of DQ the largest fundamental mis-step in Lila. It is
Pirsig's platypus.
But I am straying from my definitions, aren't I? So, I will "tag" the
preconceptual DQ as the "prepatterned changing flux of immediate experience"
DQ/SQ RELATIONSHIP -- Now, let me further explain my take on their
relationships to each other.
As I have defined them (and I believe as Pirsig uses them), DQ and Quality
are really interchangeable. So too is a term called "The Quality Event".
These terms all refer to immediate experience. As Pirsig admits, the MOQ is a
type of Radical Empiricism.
So, what is sq? How can sq not be part of DQ and Quality?
My current thoughts are best explained in an (admitedly limited) analogy: DQ
is "sound experiences" within a song. Sq is the song. DQ is the
unpatterned experience/Quality, sq is the pattern derived from that
experience. The experience contributes to the creation of me, of the song and
of the singer. Notice that sound experiences occurred before and after the
divided out portion called the song. Reality is this stream of sound. Sq is
the subjects and objects and divisions derived from experience.
Sq is conceptually divided reality. But since reality is experience prior to
these divisions, sq is a misleading, though useful, map. We are so used to
this map that we mistake it for reality.
The interaction of sq/DQ is complexified and obscured because of the feedback
loop that defines their interaction. In SOM terms (forgive me), concepts are
united experiences. These concepts are themselves experienced. Patterns of
these united experiences are also united and also experienced........ So in
essence, sq and DQ advance via a neverending feedback loop.
Your feedback is very much appreciated. I ask each member to not only
critique my definitions and explanations though, but also to explain their
definitions of these terms and the relationships between them. Where
possible, give examples. Examples tend to work much better than just cutting
and pasting Pirsig quotes. Any feedback on my concern with Pirsig's
tacked-on 2nd definition of DQ (The "evolving toward" definition) is also
valued.
Roger
MOQ Online - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jan 17 2002 - 13:08:43 GMT