Hi Andre,
Yes, I agree with you that DQ is not subordinate to concepts, but
neither is sq.  Concepts in both cases are meant to provide meaning,
not to encase.  If a concept helps one understand what lies beneath,
then it is useful.  Never, in both cases, should the concepts replace
what they are pointing towards.  The concept of sq cannot contain the
fact that it is sq itself.  A set cannot include itself.  This would
result in a paradox.  Mathematics has tried to get around this, but I
think it is all hand-waving.

If indeed we leave concepts out of DQ, then DQ should never be
mentioned, not even in passing.  Even the symbolism inherent in "DQ"
is a concept.  This is of course the difficulty (or degeneration) that
Pirsig points to of metaphysics in general.  I believe most
metaphysicians fully understand this, and we do not need to keep
harping on it.  In my opinion, it is a fundamental of metaphysics that
we are providing a description for illumination, and not as strict
dogma.  Otherwise metaphysics would not make any sense, since it
cannot encompass itself.  More below.

On 1/24/12, Andre <andrebroersen@gmai...> wrote:
> Mark to Andre:
>
> Well this is a most enlightening answer.  You say not to refer to DQ, but
> that Pirsig can do it. Why is that?
>
> Andre:
> For the reason's you state a little further on in your response Mark. The
> term DQ is not meant to be a concept but only a referring term. (Did I say
> not to 'refer' to DQ??)
> "It's important to keep all 'concepts' out of Dynamic Quality. Concepts are
> always static. Once they get into Dynamic Quality they'll overrun it and try
> to present it as some kind of concept itself".  (Anthony's PhD, p 35)
>
> Marsha muddles it up by conflating DQ with sq and sq with DQ. From an MOQ
> perspective there is a little problem there.

Yup, but the water is only muddy for her.  I agree that for the casual
reader, we must warn against this, for it reduces MoQ to some kind of
"whatever you like" philosophy.  This is of course a product of the
"Relativity Age" that we live in.  Much of it comes from Sociology.
Like: "your truth ain't my truth".  Of course one's appreciation of
truth cannot be made relative for it comes from within and is not
governed by comparison to others.  That is the business of a
Sociologist who seeks to encapsulate each and every one of us into a
model.  We know better!  We are not governed by static
representations.
>
> Mark:
> DQ is left "undefined" means that the words we use to describe it are
> sentiments and not logical constructs.  This is what the analogy of the
> train is.  It is a picture, not a wordy definition.
>
> Andre:
> Interesting, but surely a picture is a static representation of something. I
> always thought the analogy of the train was meant to indicate static
> patterns of value. DQ is the 'front egde' of this analogy...not in the
> picture. Maybe I misunderstand.

A picture on a wall can be a static representation.  A picture formed
in ones head is much more than that.  Such picture is a vehicle
towards understanding.  There is nothing static about that, unless we
let it be such.  Even the "front edge" is a "picture" in our heads.
Let's not get too dogmatic on what we can and what we cannot do in
MoQ, it flies in the face of MoQ (IMO).  I, for one, would never say
that MoQ IS this or that, because again that would not be in the
spirit of MoQ.  If others want to do that, fine, but it is their loss.
They are restricting their own understanding of MoQ.
>
> Mark:
> By the way, I agree that by definition, Quality is separated into two
> distinct parts, sq and DQ.
>
> Andre:
> Not sure how you use the word "distinct" or "separated" Mark. The one is a
> manifestation of the other, a static manifestation. Quality, as I understand
> it is not-two.

Andre, this is the razor that is used.  Quality is broken up into sq
and DQ.  I thought we agreed on that.  Even if one is a manifestation
of the other, we cannot say that DQ is sq, or, DQ alone is the same as
Quality can we?  Yes, Quality is not-two, but how do we describe it in
metaphysical terms?  We use sq and DQ.  This again is standard in any
metaphysics.  We need handles for presentation and discussion.  If we
did not, Pirsig would never have invented the concepts of DQ and sq
and be peacefully sailing his boat (IMO of course).

Let's not assume that since they are created for rhetoric purposes
that they actually exist.  When we describe a photon as a "waveicle",
we are not saying that a photon is Actually a wave or a particle
(although many are confused, and think so).  We are just providing a
description; a photon IS NEITHER of these.  The same is true for
Quality.  What we provide are descriptions, that is the power of the
intellect.  Also, (just to rant) let's not say that the intellect is
somehow one step removed from DQ or Quality because it cannot be.
That would not make sense in MoQ terms, if we extraplate out what MoQ
represents and consider the dynamic nature of the intellectual level.
As we form concepts, that is DQ in action, as we recieve concepts and
understand them, that's DQ.  This notion of some kind of filtration
(removing DQ) going on between when we first sense something to when
we conceptualize it does not make sense.  The formation of a concept
is primary experience.  Just a suggestion, of course, and perhaps
Pirsig would disagree here, but I doubt it.  I guess we will never
know.  This blockage of DQ being part of the intellect representing
results in more problems than it provides answers.
>
Cheers,
Mark
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html