> I am fine with leaving DQ undefined so long as we can talk abou it. I > think we all know that what we are producing are opinions on our > personal interpretations of what DQ feels like. Of course the > conceptual is just the conceptual. That goes without saying. > >
Not sure what you mean to say by commenting 'the conceptual is just the conceptual' but okay.
> > "The best answer to the question, “What is Dynamic Quality?” is the ancient > > Vedic one—“Not this, not that.” " > > > > > I think that Pirsig must be careful here, for that statement can be > interpreted in many ways. I am not sure if Pirsig is an expert on > Vedic knowledge, but I would doubt it since that takes many many years > of training. "not this, not that" is of course a translation of the > Neti Neti, which is actually NOT "not this not that". I am sure you > know this so this statement is for others who become confused by this. > >
I really don't think it's all that ambiguous. Dynamic Quality isn't anything. It's not this, not that, not anything. > > > > David, as you know, I am a scientist, have been one for over 30 years. > I am fully aware of the value side of science as are all scientists. > It is the layperson who does not understand this. They > unconditionally accept what scientists say as if they are all > knowledgeable and value free. Science is a messy subject just like > metaphysics. What comes out of science is the result of heated > exchanges between scientists, followed by a conditional acceptance of > a certain view. This view is always changing since science is very > dynamic. > > Raw data is raw data. It has no value. It is the interpretation of > such data which brings in value. It can be said that the data > produced is a function of the method of interrogation. As such, data > reflects the answer which is trying to be established whether it be > for or against a certain theory. So you correctly say that the > "unravelling" is value driven. However, it is not unravelling at all, > it is structure building. There is nothing to unravel. > >
I think it is unravelling. It's creation. It's art.
> > > > > > > I don't like the term spirit. People are burned at stakes for the religious > > term. > > > > > Fair enough, do you have a better word? quality.
> > > > > > I disagree. Gravity is very clearly the value of my feet to this earth. DQ > > isn't something which has direct, obvious, predictable results like that. > > DQ isn't anything, gravity very much has its own definition and is very > > predictable. > > > > > I believe that Pirsig would disagree with you on this one. Gravity is > a man-made concept. It does not really exist as such. If you believe > it to be value, then it most certainly is, but that does not make such > a thing real. Gravity has an accepted definition, but this too is > conceptual. Again, I warn you against making these things more real > than they are. This is what MoQ warns against too, imo. Gravity > itself is as elusive as DQ, just read what Pirsig has to say on the > subject. > >
Gravity is a concept. Everything we can talk about are concepts. But does that mean there exists just concepts?
I think that quality is fundamental, not concepts. While all we can talk about is concepts how did the concepts get here? These concepts were selected based on how good they are. It is the quality which the concepts describe that is fundamental. What about that quality? What is it exactly? The MOQ would say that we can break this quality into two. sq and DQ. sq we can talk about. sq is every thing. sq is every thing in an encyclopaedia. Is gravity in an encyclopaedia?
Now DQ.. is that in an encyclopaedia? DQ isn't anything.
> I never said meaningless. In fact there is great meaning to the > undefined. I thought I made this clear. Yes, it is a human ability > to be able to define. In that way we can converse about things. > However, these definitions are not meant to replace, they are just > tools. Of course there is more than just these minds of ours, but > those are from which we speak. I can't imagine thinking like a plant, > can you? However they have their own presence which is as valid as > ours. > >
I disagree a plant is as 'valid' as us. We humans are capable of far more things than a biological plant.
> > > > > > > > > The strength I am referring to is that unlike any other Metaphysics or > > indeed philosophical system, it opens itself up to being better than it > > currently is. It is built right into the foundation of the Metaphysics. > > That is very unique and I think a strength.. > > > > > OK, I think that is correct by my view. Science opperates in the same > way, always has. Science is a progressive metaphysics. > >
Yes, science is open in this same way; however it's foundations like SOM or the scientific method are not open in this way. Within the MOQ, even its foundations are open to being replaced by something better.
> I am not quite sure why you say that. Perhaps your interpretation > does not fit what I am trying to say. We all know what truth is, and > it is not "any word on the planet". I am speakin of "truth" which > occurs before we make any conceptual framework of it. Bumping into a > tree in the dark of night is Truth. Unless you want to say that such > a thing is simply an illusion. If this is the case then it is you who > are making the concept of truth prior to conceptualization > meaningless. There is truth within Quality, my friend. > >
I see. You seem to be using the term truth as a scientist would. In the objective sense. That is 'before concepts'. But I do not think any such truth exists. Truths are ideas. There are truths about biological and inorganic quality certainly but these truths are intellectual and not the quality they represent. > > You are being very clear. But I disagree. What you seem to be inadvertently > > doing is placing truth before the quality of something. > > > > > No, David, I am not putting the conceptualized truth above Quality. I > am putting Quality above such Truth. From quality comes truth. We > cannot even say that such a statement is true, but that it has > quality. > >
Okay I agree with that.
> Yes, of course. I am not doing any subbordination at all. Perhaps I > am not explaining myself well for you to come to that conclusion. I > am looking at the merry-go-round from above, and got off that thing a > long time ago. It is perhaps you who claim that quality comes before > truth as a form of truth that are caught in the merry-go-round. Is > that possible? > > I am not sure what you mean by Good. Is the currently accepted truth > about death by the intelligencia good? Is the fact that we become > anhilated and cannot return in another life time Good? This is the > accepted truth in our day and age amongst the intellectuals, but in my > opinion it is far from good. Please explain what you mean by Good, or > "high quality", because I do not think we see it in the same way. > >
I'm surprised every time you ask me to define, or what I mean by Good. If there are truths which aren't good, then they aren't good. I think what you may be referring to is that a truth to one person is different to a truth of another? The truth of something can be culturally determined just as the good can. But does that mean there is no such thing as good? > > > Mark > > > No, I have. The way you use the word Truth, it is not DQ, I agree > > > with that, as I tried to explain above. I am not sure if you want to > > > define DQ as undefined Quality. There are many things in Quality that > > > are undefined, but many of them are sq. Definitions are only part of > > > what makes up sq. We can share undefined things like a laugh. In > > > order to share, such things must be objectified. > > > > > > > A laugh being something which exists in a dictionary is something which can > > be defined. I'll repeat again, all things which can be defined are in a > > dictionary. DQ is undefined betterness... > > > > > Again you seem to miss the whole point of my rhetoric. The > definitions is not the laugh. It is only a definition. The laugh > itself is undefinable, it is an occurrence. There is no way to > suitably define it. Again, I must warn you about thinking that the > definitions (sq) are the thing being defined (DQ). If you do, you get > caught up living in an sq world. MoQ is supposed to lead one out of > this mind-set that you seem to be promoting. We are not stuck in an > sq world. Please try to understand that. We live in a DQ world. > >
I know that mark. And I certainly don't doubt your good intentions. But it's so easy for someone, anyone to come along and say, oh so that right there is DQ! And miss it completely..
> > I think rather than 'the truth' there is many. Each of them can be ranked > > based on how good they are. Truth is intellectual value. What is true is > > what is the highest intellectual pattern. > > > > > OK, let me take what you say here. Is it true that each truth can be > ranked? Where does this truth come from? > >
> If Truth as intellectual > value is something that you find to be true, how do you go about the > ranking of this truth? If what is true is the highest intellectual > pattern, then who's intellectual pattern do you choose? You seem to > be sliding into the meaninglessness of relativism here, unless I > misunderstand what you are trying to say. > >
I think the confusion here is the term "highest intellectual pattern". This term seems to suggest some sort of ranking. If something is ranked, then where does the first thing come from? We've actually had this discussion before about sq patterns in general. As I said then, I don't think that you need more than one quality to 'rank' it. If there is one, then that's the best pattern. > > > > The thing itself is the static quality. 'Doing something' could be > > biological, social or intellectual quality. It depends on what it is that > > your doing but these things are all static quality. We do have words for > > the actual doing. Running, Reading, Thinking, these are all doing words no? > > > > > No, the thing itself is NOT static quality. The concept of the thing > is static quality. Again, I must warn you of confusing the concept > with the thing it is representing. A word is a word, nothing more. > Yes, a word is a form of sq, but it is only a word. When we speak of > what we are doing that is static quality. The doing itself without > any conceptualization is dynamic, pure DQ. It is the intimate > connection between us and everything else. It cannot be defined. > Definitions do not even approach what it is. This is a very important > concept in MoQ. Our simplification of things do not, even nearly, > represent what they are, they are just agreements. > >
I think there is a fine line here with our disagreement. You argue that everything is a concept. I agree with this argument but with a caveat. That caveat is that, everything is a concept in so far as it is good. So while it's true that our minds create the world in which we live, and it's true that our definitions are sq. They are not the only sq. It is a good idea also, that our ideas represent the sq of the other levels. I think this is a large part of our disagreement so if you have more to say on this then please do. > > Questions in Buddhist training are answered with actions to point out that > > there is more than just these static things. People get so caught up in > > their thoughts that they forget this reality right here in front of them.. > > But the actions which follow the simple questions, are they DQ? Let's say > > someone asks whether a dog has a buddha nature and he gets a whack on the > > head. Is the whacking DQ? I don't think that DQ can be captured into sq like > > this. This is why it's best to say that DQ is 'Not this, not that'. > > > > > Yes, I think you are correct with the Buddhist training. This form of > training has been around for many years, long before Buddhism. When > man transitioned from the wordless to the wordy, this was a definite > split. As we grew, we became more enamoured with the words than what > they represented. MoQ is trying to bring us back to the Quality of > things, rather than their man-made representations. > >
Yep. > > Yes, what comes from the whacking at that instant is pure DQ. Once we > conceptualize them they are represented by sq. This is the whole > purpose of trying to Whack somebody out of the sq dream. If you state > that DQ is not this not that, you are not really saying it IS "not > this not that", you are pointing away from sq. I am not capturing DQ > into sq, so don't believe such a thing. Perhaps you are doing such > capturing. I am outside of such a thing. I am pointing to the nature > of sq. Again, I guess I can't explain this well. > >
Well yeah, I'm not sure what you mean by your "outside of such a thing". I don't think anyone can avoid defining things. There's not a person alive who hasn't defined something in some way. The best way to define DQ is by pointing at what it is not rather than what is it. Everyone knows what it is…
> > Your travels are still sq. The concept of your travels represents other sq > > things which you did while you were on your travels. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, they are not. They are sq when I conceptualize them. The travels > themselves have nothing to do with sq. I am speaking of that which > lies before the concepualization. It is the act of doing those things > that I am pointing towards. Again I must warn you about confusing the > "representation" (sq) for the thing it is representing (DQ). > >
Yes Mark, and I don't deny that you are doing that you are pointing at the DQ and not the sq. But my point is that what you were doing before you 'conceptualised' travelling was sq travelling.. And yes, I'm fully aware that we only know this on reflection..
> > > > > > > > > I can claim that it is NOT sq. I do not see why you would say it is. > > > Would you consider the manner in which you look out before > > > conceptualizing to be sq? I think you are confusing what I am > > > presenting with the words I am presenting it with. I can say that I > > > am in the presence of DQ all the time, this is why I like what Pirsig > > > wrote. If you want to believe it is sq, that is fine by me, but it is > > > not. > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, I would consider 'the manner in which you look out before > > conceptualising' to be sq. > > > > > Then we have different defintions of sq. I can live with that. Well this is why we're having this discussion.. To bring harmony to our different understandings. I can only live with with it when there is such harmony. Right now I don't think there's such harmony, but I think it's getting better :-)
> > Because you have just described to me some > > static thing, and this is not DQ. By saying that we are 'present' with DQ > > all the time you seem to be suggesting that I don't think that DQ exists. > > Of course DQ exists. I think we need to be clear about what it is and what > > it isn't. DQ is not some static quality thing. If we stretch our definition > > of DQ too much beyond that, then it kills DQ. Strangles DQ in sq > > definitions.. This is why I argue to leave DQ undefined. We all know what > > it is. Let's just leave it at that... > > > > > If you want to be clear on "what [DQ] is and what it is not", I am all > for that. However, you are going against your own maxim there of > undefinability. > > Yes, DQ is not the representation of something, it is what is being > represented. I am not stretching the definition of DQ by any means. > In fact I am not defining it at all except to say that "it is what is > being represented by sq". It is what lies outside of sq. This is the > fundamental DQ/SQ split that we agree on as necessary to build MoQ. > > Everytime you bring DQ into a sentence you are defining it. That is > the way words work. We cannot use a word that has no meaning. > Meaning in conversation is brought about though an acceptance of what > we are referring to. This acceptance is what creates definitions. > Every word in this post is defined otherwise I could not use them. > The undefinable yet agreed on nature of DQ IS a definition. When > operating in an sq exchange, we cannot get away from that. It would > be like trying to build a house without any building materials. > Indeed. The term DQ is a definition. And as I've said it's a matter of degree... > > > The individual that the concept is depicting is sq. There is more to static > > quality that just intellectual quality. There are four levels of static > > quality. > > > > > I would have to emphatically say that it is not. The sq being used > does not replace what it is being used to represent. In fact it > cannot replace it. It is this idea that it DOES replace it that MoQ > is trying to rally us against. Just step outside the sq world for a > minute. It is not hard. Walk around and look at things without > naming or even recognizing them. Just turn the sq part off. This may > take practices, but it is extremely doable. There are many many > techniques which have been thought of through the ages to do this. > The Western mentality has shut itself off to this "living in Quality". > Let us not shut MoQ off to this through a bundleing technique. > >
I don't claim that intellectual quality 'replaces' what it represents. Far from it. What I do claim is that it does represent the other levels. No one would say that the concept of arm didn't represent the things in front of us.. > but even that idea of yours above will eventually be replaced by something better and thus on a certain scale could be said to be 'wrong'. > > > > > > > Yes, I agree, fundamentally we can't define anything. Things change and thus > > we always get it wrong. But we're alive and picking up bar ladies and > > discussing Metaphysics on a discussion board is a part of life. > > > > > Yes, when we define we are agreeing on things so that we can exchange > ideas. This is a fundamental ability of being human, and is extremely > Grand. Just look at how creative we can be. We have developed such a > complex form of exchange that I am continually astonished by it. We > can present pictures in words! > > We get nothing wrong unless you think the act of creativity is wrong. > Far from it, we are doing things right. Let us not confuse what is > for what we represent it to be, however. > >
Yep. But then I guess even that idea of yours above will eventually be replaced by something better and thus on a certain scale could be said to be 'wrong'. That's what I meant anyways.. > Sq exists so that we can opperate in the social and intellectual > levels. Simple as that. I think it is wonderful. For it to be > considered necessary it would depend what you mean. It is what it is. > It IS This, and IS That. > >
> > Concepts are only a small part of sq I agree. But there are three other > > levels of sq which aren't concepts. These three other levels aren't DQ as > > you seem to imply. They are actually very static and definable things. > > > > > I guess it would depend on what you mean by sq. For me sq is a > conceptual framework. It is what we create in our heads as the RESULT > of the interaction between that outside with that inside. The > interaction itself is pure DQ. Sq is a packaging of experiences for > export. When one sees a tree, it is DQ until it is placed within a > framework which is meant to be used in a sequential or meaningful way. > Once converted to sq it can be used for export either to relay this > to someone else, or to explain a decision (often to oneself). The > actual appreciation of the tree happens before sq, and is explained > after. The capability for making a decision is DQ which uses sq to > format the decision. Jumping off a hot stove is a decision. Later we > "sq' the whole thing to explain what we did and why. "Why" is a > request for sq as is any question. Once an answer is received and > incorporated into the brain, it can be used in a DQ fashion. I cannot > think when the last time I asked Why I must stop at a red light. > Perhaps it was that fender bender in the '80s. > > In MoQ we must be able to distinguish between sq and DQ in order to > have a meaningful conversation. So I present my paragraph above for > your review and comments or criticisms. It is somewhat half-baked. > >
Well as you can probably guess I guess I will criticise.. I think it sullies the clean distinction between DQ and sq. You keep saying that you know of a 'DQ tree' or a 'DQ interaction' but DQ cannot be captured into concepts like this. DQ is before concepts. DQ isn't anything. Even if your intentions are pure, these words of yours of a 'DQ tree' can be taken very easily by someone else and turned into sq. If I say, "oh that's just the 'DQ tree' over there" or "oh that's just someone's 'DQ intentions'". Then I think this really misses the mark. We end up just talking about sq and losing sight of what DQ is. DQ isn't anything. > Just so that you know, David, much of the post above was for the > uninitiated or confused which I do not think you are a member of. The > repetition of some concepts is for them. I certainly learn a lot by > reading you opinions. > >
I hope I'm learning to better articulate myself as well Mark. The repetition helps us both I think. I'm enjoying the discussion though bare with me as unfortunately I cannot sometimes spend as much time as I would like on here.