> Hi, > There seems to be some "stuckness" going on here as a result of the words > being used. I will provide some thoughts below. > > On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 12:33 AM, MarshaV <valkyr@att....> wrote: > >> >> Hi Joe, >> >> >> Marsha: >> I do not think Dynamic Quality can be known conceptually (patterned) or >> perceptually (patterned). Dynamic Quality is unknowable, indivisible and >> undefinable. > > > Mark: > "And what is good, Phaedrus, and what is not good- need we ask anyone to > tell us these things?" ZAMM- quote which leads the book. > Until one grasps this quote, one does not grasp what is being told in ZAMM. > DQ is not unknowable, for we all know it. We could say that DQ is > indivisible, but then so is Love. What can the indivisible part tell us? > We can define anything we want, for that is what we do as humans. Any > definition of anything is insufficient, for that is a property of SQ. To > say that DQ is undefinable, suggests that we cannot relate it. But we > relate DQ all the time.
Marsha: I do not think Dynamic Quality can be known conceptually (patterned) or perceptually (patterned). Dynamic Quality is unknowable, indivisible and undefinable.
>> Marsha: >> Experience is recognizing patterns based on the predisposition of our >> perceptual and mental apparatus. How is it that human beings might have >> access to what is beyond that apparatus? Mental white noise! > > > Mark: > The intellectual experience is only a small part of human existence. The > brain is an organ like the heart. We always have access beyond the brain, > or the heart, or the gut for that matter. To conceive that we are stuck in > experience (of whatever kind) leaves out a lot of human existence. > Experience is created by our bodies, but just think what lies before and > after that experience. There is a whole world there.
Marsha: I did not confine the statement to "intellectual experience", nor "the brain". I wrote: Experience is recognizing (valuing) patterns based on the predisposition of our perceptual and mental apparatus.
>> Marsha: >> Static patterns (perceptual and conceptual) are what we know. > > > Mark: > No, we know much more than that. We know what is before such static > patterns, and what happens when they appear. Life is not existing in > shadows of two dimensional presentation. Try to understand Plato's sun.
Marsha: Static patterns (perceptual and conceptual) are what we know. Though Dynamic Quality may be experienced, Dynamic Quality is unknowable, indivisible and undefinable.
>> Marsha: >> Here is where the idea of evolution _seems_ to add value to our >> understanding, or maybe not. We don't know what we don't know! > > > Mark: > Here's the deal: > 1. We know that we know > 2. We know that we don't know > 3. We don't know what we don't know > 4. We don't know what we know (we must never forget this last > configuration). > > There are so many things that we do not know that we know. One does not > simply stop at a definition of static patterns, one travels beyond that to > know more that we know. Words can get one stuck at what seems to be and end > of knowing. But such a thing is just an illusion created by believing the > words. Words are not meant to provide limits to knowledge, they are meant > to continue to extend knowledge, forever.
Marsha: If this is your "deal", I am not buying it as a relevant response to my statement.
>> Marsha: >> And as RMP has advised "To the extent that one's behavior is controlled by >> static patterns of value it is without choice. But to the extent that one >> follows Dynamic Quality, which is undefinable, one's behavior is free." > > Mark: > Yes, exactly!
Marsha: A quote has its advantages.
> One is controlled by static patterns if one follows them. > One such following would be to say that DQ is unknowable, indivisible and > undefinable. One does not need to follow those rules, one can follow DQ. > It is important to not box oneself in with static patterns. That is what > Pirsig is saying. The more rigorous MoQ becomes, the less it becomes about > Quality. It becomes the Metaphysics of MoQ (MoMoQ). Then one can take it > a step farther and it becomes the MoMoMoQ. This goes on forever like a > snake eating its own tail. This is what happens when one follows static > patterns. One is not free.
Marsha: One might say that saying anything at all is static, and here you are having so much to say too.
>> Marsha: >> Can you attentively detach, for even a few minutes, from the flow of >> patterns? Maybe slightly dizzy from that merry-go-round is the better >> place to be? Maybe being slightly dizzy enabled Einstein to visualize >> something that freed him from the past? >> > > Mark: > If one detaches from this flow of patterns, one is no longer the flow of > patterns. The flow of patterns are something that is happening to one; > just like one is not part of the roller coaster that one is experiencing, > but can say "I am on a roller coaster, I am on it". As you correctly say, > there is something which can detach. This is known as the Self. The Self > is not some logical construct that can be encountered through thinking > about it. The self is what experiences the thinking. It is the page on > which the words of your life are written. One can search forever in the > words and never see the page. It is not part of the words.
Marsha: You misrepresented my statement, which was a question (about detaching). - The "self", as an inherently existing, autonomous individual, is an illusion. Upon investigation I consistently find only a flow of bits and pieces of inorganic, biological, social and intellectual value patterns.
> Mark: > It is much more than an opinion, it is a way of life. It is the Quality > Way. It is what Pirsig writes about in ZAMM.
RMP's opinion: "The MOQ, like the Buddhists and the Determinists (odd bedfellows) says this “autonomous individual” is an illusion." (RMP, Copleston)
> All my opinion of course, just like Pirsig has his opinion. > > Mark