> All I meant was that if a word is used, we must agree with what that
> word means. Often the case in this forum seems to be that we cannot
> agree on simple terminology. In such cases, the strength of agreement
> on such words is weak. There are many examples of this which I am
> sure you are aware of. What happens in such cases is that the
> discussion deteriorates into semantic obfuscation.
> Yes, perhaps that is the confusion. Where I am coming from is the
> presentation of MoQ as a metaphysics. For purposes of helping us to
> understand what Quality is, Pirsig has devided Quality into DQ and sq.
> These do not necessarily have to exist[Intellectually? -DH] to understand Quality, but,
> since this is metaphysics this division is useful for understanding.
> Once we understand what Quality is, the distinction between DQ and sq
> is no longer necessary since then we see reality as Quality. MoQ is
> like a book about Argentina. Once we live in Argentina we do not need
> the book anymore.
Yeah, that's true from a DQ perspective. But here we are talking about static quality.. :-)
> Yes, they must be distinguished since that is how the metaphysics is
> set up. If the distinction between DQ and sq was not established MoQ
> would not be MoQ. We establish that DQ and sq exists for us to
> continue with the set-up.
> I do have a disagreement with you on the order of appearance. As I
> see it, DQ and sq must arrise together. An analogy would be a window
> in a house. Both the frame and the opening are linked so they cannot
> come about in sequence. At the expense of seeming religious (which I
> am not in the dogmatic sense), the same is true for the Metaphysical
> split between the body and spirit (note that I said metaphysical since
> this split is artificially created to explain a perpective). That is,
> the spirit (as conceived in the particular metaphysics) and the body
> cannot exist separately but must co-arrise. There is no human body
> without spirit and no spirit without human body (although I can think
> of a number of historical characters that seem to be without human
> spirit :-))
I'm surprised you believe in spirits. I don't like the word spirit. People got burned at the steak because of their 'evil spirits'. So I'm afraid I can't respond here beyond that..
> The conceptualizing of DQ and sq is not relative for this does not
> make sense. For, is the wind relative to the air? In my
> understanding, relative connotes that a comparison is made, or, that
> something is seen within a certain context. Examples of these would
> be "I am here relative to there", and, "DQ and sq exist relative to
> MoQ". DQ cannot be relative to sq, IMO. It seems that the term
> relative is used for something that it should not. But I am happy to
> be corrected here.
Sorry Mark, I'm not sure I follow here..
> What I am suggesting is that "conceptualization" requires
> contextualization. Things become static through distinction. If
> there is no conceptual distinction, we cannot discuss a static
> I can see what you are presenting, however. When we drive into a tree
> (heaven forbid), we experience some very static quality. However the
> static notion comes after the experience when we say "officer, that
> tree attacked me!" I would say that the feeling of going 90 miles per
> hour is a dynamic feeling that we are not constantly referring to as
> "gee, I am going 90 miles an hour" as it is happening (until it's too
> late). In my current opinion, static quality requires some sort of
> reflection. But I'm easy and I can go either way on this. Perhaps
> the question is: When is something static quality, and when is it
> dynamic quality (experience). Or maybe that is the wrong question for
> we do not want to pigeon-hole DQ.
That's right I agree. You can't point your finger at DQ. One can only allude to DQ... I think that to conceptualise something we don't need to contextualise. We can and certainly do contextualise but the order of events is conceptualise and then contextualise. Both aren't necessary for static patterns to exist.
> We can disagree on this, like I said, I'm easy and continually
> improving. Maybe between patterns is not necessary, but we must pull
> a pattern from somewhere, IMO. It must stand out. A mountain only
> exists because there is a plain.
The first pattern cannot be the first pattern if there was one before it. Patterns come from nowhere :-).
>> On an unrelated note, why is it misleading to say that the sea shore is
>> relative to the land and ocean?
> This is probably due to the way I understand the word relative. But I
> suppose we can say that the seashore is relative to the land/ocean
> context. I am trying to avoid falling into a relativism trap, so
> maybe I am just paranoid :-)
>> Yes, DQ is not the subconscious. Unfortunately, I'm not very fond of your
>> "inside looking out" analogy though. It seems to bring to my mind a fixed
>> 'inside' and a fixed 'outside'. Two very static things.
> Yes, the is the problem with subject-objectification. It is the view
> that I am referring to, not where they are coming from. The concept
> of the inside or outside "looking" is what I am trying to explain.
> Perhaps I will try a different metaphor, at the expense of confusing
> the issue. The "outside looking in" could be analogous to "a pointing
> finger", whereas the inside looking out would be "a finger pointing".
> The first is an object, while the second is an event. The outside
> looking in creates objects, while the inside looking out is experience
> without "objects". Both are necessary, like peanut butter and jelly
> for the PBJ sandwich, they both contribute to the Yummy. Such
> "experience" is a human form of DQ. OK, there, I have added another
> topic for confusion :-)
Yeah. I think the trouble that you're having is that you're trying to understand DQ intellectually. You're trying to compare it to sq so you can 'latch' onto it of sorts. But the trouble is of course, that DQ is not some intellectual idea to understand in this way. We can only use sq to allude to DQ. Not in comparison to some such a sq, but through metaphor only.
> Just trying to keep things lively!
Cool, I'm all for that.
> ps: I am so used to spell check that when I don't have it I question
> all of my spelling since the words start to look "weird" the more I
> look at them...
I didn't see any spelling errors.
Thanks for the discussion Mark. I really appreciate your efforts in clearly explaining how you see things.