From: Valuemetaphysics@aol.com
Date: Mon Apr 12 2004 - 04:19:34 BST
PART. 1.
Hi David, all,
Well, I raised the conceptual point (as the first of two points, the second
of which has been
quietly ignored) because it seemed to me that if Pirsig's understanding of
Quality/DQ/SQ was - shall
we say - loosely worded, then that would have a significant bearing on what
you want to talk about
(which we all want to talk about too).
Mark 12-4-04: The Metaphysics of Quality talks about Quality by using two
terms: Dynamic Quality and Static Quality. You may think of this as a hierarchy
in the following way:
1. Quality. Cannot be discussed and fatal to indicate. Final. This is the
Plotinian and unnamed Tao way of going about it. Very hard to do, especially for
people like yourself who enjoy analysis. The MoQ does not talk about Quality
either.
2. DQ. Now we have left off not talking about that which we cannot talk about
and begun talking. Here, DQ is the unconceptualised, as you appear to
understand.
3. SQ. Fill your boots in the talking dept.
From the above you should not even be using Quality at all. But you do, and
that is unfortunate.
I also think that it underlies much of the confusion that consistently
defeats attempts to gain
clarity about the different levels and the way that religion relates to the
MoQ.
Mark 12-4-04: You will notice that the MoQ uses two terms: DQ and SQ.
Everything you need to say may be said using these two terms. The term Quality is not
used in the MoQ.
So all in all, I
make no apology for raising conceptual questions.
Mark 12-4-04: Quality is not a conceptual distinction from a Plotinian,
unnamed Tao view. You should not use this term.
If we can't gain further clarity about what we're
talking about - and for sure, the issues raised cut to the very heart of the
MoQ which is what you
claim to want to talk about - then there's not much point in having this
discussion at all.
Mark 12-4-04: You will notice that the MoQ uses two terms: DQ and SQ.
Everything you need to say may be said using these two terms. The term Quality is not
used in the MoQ.
The understanding that I object to came to the fore again in your post. You
said: "The true nature
of reality is undivided. That's the pre-intellectual cutting edge of
experience."
Mark 12-4-04: One cannot talk about the true nature of reality at all.
Whenever you approach it 'you' are assimilated. Logically, 'you' cannot be what
'you' think 'you' are and be assimilated simultaneously. I use the term,
'Assimilated' as a metaphor.
As I understand the MoQ there are three elements: Quality, Dynamic Quality
and Static Quality.
Mark 12-4-04: No. The MoQ uses two terms. Quality here is Plotinian - don't
even mention it.
Quality is (the mystical) reality.
Mark 12-4-04: Mystical reality, which cannot be spoken of, like Plotinus for
example recommends. (see hierarchy above).
Dynamic Quality is the pre-intellectual cutting edge of reality
Static Quality is the pattern of value that dynamic quality leaves in its
wake
Mark 12-4-04: Together, these two terms form the basis of the MoQ. If you
stick to these then you may talk, talk, talk away!
So in terms of how we can understand and explain our experience (experience
being the basic 'stuff'
of reality - and the MoQ being a variant of empiricism) what we have are: our
static patterns (eg
our accumulated language);
Mark 12-4-04: Lots of talking may be done here.
our 'dim apprehensions of things too obscure for its existing language'
which is DQ;
Mark 12-4-04: Very good.
and we also have all those things which we don't have any comprehension or
intimation
of whatsoever - the totally unknown and unknowable.
Mark 12-4-04: You are slipping that term 'Quality' into the MoQ again. The
MoQ only uses two terms: DQ and SQ. Using DQ to indicate, "those things which we
don't have any comprehension or intimation of whatsoever - the totally
unknown and unknowable" is conceptually acceptable because it is logically coherent;
it is logically coherent to postulate DQ without conceptualising it. DQ is
concept free.
The reason why DQ and Quality need to be distinguished is because if they are
identified then the
MoQ collapses into solipsism,
Mark 12-4-04: This statement is misleading. Solipsism is a problem for
materialists and idealists who advocate a substance based metaphysics or ontology,
but the MoQ is a value based metaphysics and a process ontology. Processes flow
in a value continuum in the MoQ making arguments for solipsism largely
redundant.
Your arguments Sam appear to have the rather interesting feature of beginning
from a position which has little to do with the MoQ. I should like everyone
to make a very clear note of this for future reference.
in other words, MY appreciation of DQ is not contextualised by my
static patterns that have led me to this point;
Mark 12-4-04: A number of points must be noted here:
1. There is no 'you' in the MoQ. This term, while pragmatic, is sloppy. If
one enquires into what 'you' means one is lead to either; A. A substance which
relies on God for its support. B. A 'self' which is the constant observer of
reality. But in a value metaphysics and a process ontology, these constructions
depend upon a relationship between patterns of quality and DQ. That
relationship may be described as 'coherent.' So, 'you' are a coherent relationship
between patterns of Quality evolving in an event stream towards DQ.
2. 'Your' experience actually IS 'a coherent relationship between patterns of
Quality evolving in an event stream towards DQ' in a larger coherent
relationship with ALL 'coherent relationships between patterns of Quality evolving in
an event stream towards DQ.'
I should like to repeat the following: Your arguments Sam appear to have the
rather interesting feature of beginning from a position which has little to do
with the MoQ.
no, my appreciation of DQ is a direct appreciation
of all that there is.
Mark 12-4-04: This statement has been rendered inadequate from an MoQ
perspective (see above).
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_focus/
MF Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_focus follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/mf/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Apr 12 2004 - 04:25:09 BST