Martin Striz (striz1@MARSHALL.EDU)
Mon, 26 Jan 1998 10:48:25 +0100
> Reading Mark's post almost compelled me to put forth an idea that has
> been bothering me for some time. Reading the posts convinces me that there
> are about as many conceptions of the Dynamic Quality idea as there are
> squad members. It is confusing to me to try to sort out the approach that a
> particular person is taking to DQ. Lila leaves a good bit of room for
> interpretation. Particularly with regard to the pre-sentient/post-sentient
> areas
> What would you think of the idea of asking each member to write a short
> statement defining what Dynamic Quality means to them, not with the idea of
> coming up with a universally accepted definition, I doubt if we could do
> that, but to give everybody an idea of the range of DQs that we are dealing
> with. It would probably start a fierce debate but that is not bad and it
> would certainly help my state of confusion.
Fear not old friend, for I suspect many of us have had trouble over this
concept. At least I know I did. Recently I've been looking into a philosophy
called "field-being," based on A. N. Whitehead's writings and some contemporary
philosophers. A friend of mine at Fairfield University (CT), who is a student
of the foremost field-being philosopher, Dr. Lik Kueng Tong, sent me several
essays that he has written about it (he has already decided to make field-being
the center of his graduate studies and wants to "pioneer" this "new"
philosophy, so I treat his essays with authority). He said that field-being is
an attempt to reconcile eastern thinking with western thinking. Now, this
immediately caught my eye since it is exactly what Pirsig wanted to do 40 years
ago. He explained that western thinking envisions Being as " | | ", that is,
separate and distinct entities, while eastern thinking envisions Being as " O
", which is to say, all part of an intricate whole. The metaphysical one-ness
of Zen. Field-being says that individuality is not real, we are all together,
that individuality is just man's rationalization so he can simplify the world
and deal with it on logical terms (sort of like it's too difficult to consider
each part as being connected to and effecting all other parts). At the same
token, field-being says that Zen one-ness is an individuality of its own, we
are just one big individual. Field-being makes a compromise and provides a
solution by saying Being is like a " U ", many beings all united yet still
distinct (sounds paradoxical eh?).
Well, from the MOQ perspective it doesn't have to be paradoxical, only within a
SOM context it is. Each individual perceived value, which is to say each
Static Value, is distinct in itself. However, prior to intellectualization,
all values exist as a dynamic whole, the dynamic whole of the Quality
Event/Dynamic Quality. I put them together because they are one and the same
(IMHO.) At least, that's the best way to make sense of them. ZMM's Quality
Event is Lila's Dynamic Quality. Both are the preintellectual cutting edge
that gives us the values with which we construct our reality. (Where does
Static Quality fit in? Well, remember the "analogues" that Pirsig speaks of in
ZMM, that Dave Thomas quoted in his graphical representation of the MOQ? These
analogues that Pirsig says "ARE our reality....ever last bit," these are static
quality.)
Now back to field-being. The most fundamental view that field-being takes on
is its nonsubstantialism. If any of you are familiar with Whitehead you
already know what I mean, field-being posits that there are no independent,
continuous beings. No individuals that last through time. Field-being sees
reality as nothing but process. In other words, there are no nouns, only
verbs. Static entities are again just mental constructions that make it easier
to deal with our world. (It's like that old paradox "What happens to my fist
when I open my hand?" We've hidden an action as a noun. "To fist" would be
more accurate than to say "To make a fist." I stopped fisting, that's why it
disappeared).
Does this sound weird to you? I hope it doesn't because the MOQ can account
for this too. DYNAMIC Quality. The Quality EVENT. What we're talking about
is events, process, dynamics, ACTION. I like to think of DQ/QE as "nowness."
The infitesimally small fragment of time that constitutes Now. That
infitesimally small unit of time that is all that exists. Everything in the
past is a memory, everything in the future is a hope. Now is all that exists.
Now is the Quality Event. It is Dynamic Quality (Now is always new). Now is
also preintellectual because it takes a split second to recognize it and think
about it (remember that old game Simon where you try to hit one of four colored
buttons as soon as they light up? That whole game is based on the fact that we
are always a little behind true reality, caught up in our own intellectualized
realities).
Field-being has helped me understand and reaffirm some very basic tenets of the
MOQ. Reality is all action because it is DQ/QE, which is a dynamic event.
Static patterns don't exist in themselves because the world is all process.
Static patterns are mental constructs because we rationalize to simplify our
world so we can understand it. Our understanding of it is that intellecutal (or
post-intellectual) level of awarness.
Does this mean that all these static patterns are unreal? We just live in a
hologram or dream? Well, our intellectualized VERSIONS of the tree-value or
wife-value or whatever are our own, they are close to but not the real thing.
But they are all we have, they are our construction of our reality and so they
must be assumed to be as real as anything (as Bodvar pointed out in the quote
from ZMM, the Quality Event prompts us to create subjects and objects).
You might object "but things really do stay the same at least for a short
time. So aren't they real static objects at least for that amount of time?"
My friend Dave Kovach from Fairfield U. answers that actually their atoms are
constantly vibrating, so each second they are (technically) a completely
different entity from the second before (since their atoms are never in the
exact same positions). It's just too hard to think of all these trillions and
trillions of atoms, each moving in a different direction. It's much easier to
think of the object as a static whole. (and besides, we can't see the atoms)
Well, this concludes my diatribe for now. :-) I know I have been silent for
the past few weeks but this should pretty much update everyone on where my mind
has been wandering.
Cheers,
Martin
(BTW, field-being is becoming a very popular philosophy, especially in the
East. Dr. Tong has a network of 600 professors in China who espouse his
beliefs. It is very close to the MOQ, but it fails to have the utility that
the MOQ has.)
-- post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:39 CEST