Re: LS Dynamic and static quality

From: RISKYBIZ9@aol.com
Date: Fri May 07 1999 - 04:49:14 BST


ROGER APPLAUDS JOHN"S DQ/SQ SCHEMATIC

Posts such as John's May 5th schematic of the relationship between sq and Dq
are the reason I love the Squad. I found this post to be absolutely first
rate. Below are my comments on his writings.

[John]
subtituting "patterned" for 'static' gives the unhelpful outcome of "patterned
patterns" in Pirsig's global statement that I was critiquing.

[Roger]
I meant patterned quality vs static quality.

[John]
In response to your little diagram
showing the evolution of life toward "new fresh undefined experience'', I
basically agree with
you that "the true aesthetic continuum is undefinable and indivisible", but I
would go further.
It is primary.

[Roger]
I'm with you here.

[John]
The arrows go in the opposite direction. Matter does not move towards mind.
Mind, as it emerges from undefinable and indivisible experience, creates
intellectual, social,
biological and physical categories, including the MOQ.

[Rog]
See my post last night on Pirsig's quotes stating the primacy of intellect.
An excerpt:

"this highest quality intellectual pattern itself comes before the external
world, not after, as is commonly presumed by the materialists."

Pirsig seems to support your direction. Although the explanation of the
level emergence logically goes from inorganic to intellect, the intellect is
necessary for the lower patterns to emerge. Using my little diagram, DQ
gains in complexity, or experience gains in quality until the intellectual
experience can map out the other patterns. Interesting.... and
controversial. I expect some outrageous slings and arrows soon if others are
following this thread. All is good.

[John]
In this I agree with Roger when he
says "DQ is the real terrain, and SQ is a conceptual map of this reality".
The obvious
conclusion is that Dynamic quality is experiential, and is not something that
fits within levels
lower than the biological. (That is, a stone cannot experience dynamic
quality.) Static quality
requires mind for its creation, so will not emerge unless there are conscious
beings to do the
work of creation. The whole universe is the creation of sentient beings, us,
who construct the
meanings which we then use to pattern our existence. It is almost impossible
to express a
concept such as this without mixing different levels of discourse, so I
realize the messiness
this creates. I shall try to schematize what is an incredibly complex matter.

[Rog]
I contend the MOQ subscribes to experience as going to what is statically
referred to as the inorganic level. This is not intellectual experience, of
course, but it is DQ. This is one of the reasons I believe Pirsig calls it
Quality, rather than pure experience. That and the solipsism charges that I
am still wincing in anticipation of soon receiving by those that don't agree
with experience as primary to mind and matter.

On the other hand, I do agree with the static universe as being created out
of intellect. DQ, or the real or primary world of pure experience does not
require the intellect. This distinction is important.

[John]
1 Living organisms exist in an experiential world. Their primary experience
(dynamic quality)
is never value free. Effectively, we only notice what has the power to help
or harm us. Our
brains are so constructed that we only sample the vast input of our senses,
and ignore most.

[Roger]
The auotopoiesis theory of life and cognition says basically the same thing.
Living beings bring forth the universe and themselves by what they value.
Horse recently even found an autopoiesis web site where the site builder
mentions Lila. Horse, do you still have this site?

[John]
2 While experience is undefinable, it can be 'captured' in memory, codified
in language, and
manipulated by intelligence. The 'captured' experience is then the 'map'. It
is always less
than the primary experience, lacking its dynamism, but can retain aspects of
the value
attached to the original experience. When this occurs we have static quality.
(Static quality is
not, then, a property of things, but is attributed to things by us.)

[Rog]
I picture 'experience echos' as a metaphor for sq. Patterned series of
weakened experiences that are themselves experienced, but are diluted and
removed from the original. I agree that sq is not a property of things
(objective), and I agree that the MOQ would state we incorrectly assign it as
subjective. Am I agreeing with you on this last point, or have I twisted your
words?

[John]
3 'Mapping' is valuable. It provides us with shortcuts to assist our
operation in the world. Like
in driving a car, much of what we do can become routine, so our attention can
be reserved
for those dynamic inputs that require immediate response. However, the very
success of
mapping can become a problem. It intrudes on the purity of experience,
dragging in aspects
of past experience which can distort and limit present primary
experience...... Intellectualism
 often kills contact with dynamic experience.

[Rog]
Very well said.

[John]
.... Artists act to liberate observation by
attending to what is, allowing the contact with dynamic quality in the medium
to operate in the
process of creation. Mystics act to liberate experience through attending to
what is and
stilling the mental chatter which contains the static quality of their
previous experience.

[Rog]
Beautiful!!!

[John]
5 Metaphysics is system building in the intellectual realm derived from
mapped experience.
It can easily become addictive, and must constantly be tested against dynamic
reality ....

[Rog]
Thank you John!! Let me know your thoughts on my commentary.

Be Good All,
Roger

"Emptiness is like water. Existence is like its waves."
[H. Yun]

MOQ Online - http://www.moq.org



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jan 17 2002 - 13:08:43 GMT