robertpirsig.org : The MOQ : An Introduction

The Dynamic reality that goes beyond words is the constant focus of Zen teaching. Because of their habituation to a world of words, philosophers often do not understand Zen. When philosophers have trouble understanding the distinction between static and Dynamic Quality it can be because they are trying to include and subordinate all Quality to thought patterns. The distinction between static and Dynamic Quality is intended to block this.

Thought patterns are sq and DQ can not be subordinated and included in them.

Therefore, our description of this room is always a static description.

The thought pattern that is the MOQ says there are more than thought patterns in the room; there are Social, Organic and Inorganic patterns also, and this completes a fuller picture of what is in this room.

So if this room has all these types of spv in it, does this mean there is no DQ in the room?

When we state what is in this room, we have to make sure we do not include or subordinate DQ in the process.

It looks like we can not say, ‘There is DQ in the room along with spv.’

If DQ is a referring term, what is DQ referring to if not something in this room?

From Subjects, Objects, Data and Values:

Dynamic Quality is a stream of quality events going on and on forever, always at the cutting edge of the present. But in the wake of this cutting edge are static patterns of value.

Northrop’s name for Dynamic Quality is ‘the undifferentiated aesthetic continuum.’ By ‘continuum’ he means that it goes on and on forever. By ‘undifferentiated’ he means that it is without conceptual distinctions. And by ‘aesthetic’ he means that it has quality.

So NOW

<snap fingers)

is DQ.

DQ is a stream of quality events

from which static patterns emerge.

DQ isn’t so much in the room - the ROOM IS IN DQ.

If we felt imprisoned in this room, how may be get out?

Is there a way of escaping the room and reaching DQ?

First of all we may try to imagine how spv form in the wake of the cutting edge of the present. But DQ is undifferentiated, and it is rather difficult to imagine how the undifferentiated becomes differentiated in some way. That is not at all an easy thing to do.

How about if we reverse our original escape plan and imagine stuffing all the spv back into the cutting edge of the present?

If spv emerge from the undifferentiated cutting edge of the present, perhaps we can imagine how differentiated spv can become undifferentiated again? That sounds a bit easier. It may be easier to imagine how the many become One rather than trying to imagine how the One becomes many.

Thankfully, there may be a clue as to how spv can be dissolved back into the cutting edge of the present. That clue may be in the book, Zen in the Art of Archery. I was going to suggest another book, Zen and that Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, …but I could not get a motorcycle up the stairs.

<PAUSE, IN THE HOPE THIS GETS A LAUGH!>

I WAS able to bring along this bow my Dad made some years ago, and so I will use this instead.

Robert Pirsig quoted in Dr McWatt’s web version thesis:

There is a valuable book called Zen in the Art of Archery by Eugen Herrigel from which I derived the title for my own first book. When the Zen Archer refers to an ‘it’ that shoots the arrow he is referring to what I mean by Dynamic Quality.

<EURIKA!>

HA HA! We may be on to something here?

DQ shoots the arrow!

Let us look at this in MOQ terms.

What is a bow and arrow in MOQ terms?

The bow and arrow is made of sp of inorganic and old organic values.

What am I made of in MOQ terms?

Sp of biological value, social values and one or two intellectual values perhaps?

How may we stuff all these patterns back into the cutting edge of the present or DQ?

We may be able to do this if we can orchestrate all these conceptually differentiated patterns into a unified edge?

We can try to monitor the edge closely until it becomes more and more sharp - and in doing so, we may slice through this room of spv in which we may feel imprisoned.

Robert Pirsig quoted in Dr McWatt’s PhD thesis:

There is a cultural blind spot to Dynamic Quality in the West but possibly this should be expected as there is an absence of formal activity (as Japan displays in the Zen arts and zazen) which assists in revealing it. Moreover, as observed in Zen in the Art of Archery, an understanding of Dynamic Quality does not reveal itself easily to the Westerner. For instance, Herrigel studied archery under a Zen Master for six years before ‘It’ revealed itself to him.

Getting a Motorcycle into the philosophy department is relatively easy compared to waiting six years for DQ to reveal itself! But what we may be able to do in the meantime is formulate a static conceptualised pattern of how patterns themselves open up to DQ.

It appears we may make some progress in formulating a static concept of how patterns open up to DQ if we examine that edge a little more closely - the edge where ‘It’ reveals itself.

Did DQ reveal itself to you?

<PAUSE>

I am not sure it did?

If we think about it, we may begin to see that there is a kind of opposite to that fine edge, and that is chaos. So we may have identified two extremes: Chaos and that fine edge.

But further reflection may reveal that the real opposite of chaos is rigid order.

So there appears to be a continuum between chaos and rigid order, or stagnation, with a very fine edge at some point between the two where DQ reveals itself.

I would like to suggest the term coherence for the immediate area surrounding that fine edge. Perhaps it is an Aura were static quality patterns merge together?

So now we may have a static conceptualised pattern of how static patterns open themselves up to DQ:

DQ is at the centre of coherence, and on either side of coherence are the two extremes of chaos and stagnation.

PART 2.

DQ is thought to be the motivation behind the evolution of the Cosmos.

Robert Pirsig writes in Lila:

To say that the world is nothing but value is just confusing, not clarifying. Now this vagueness is removed by sorting out values according to levels of evolution. The value that holds a glass of water together is an inorganic pattern of value. The value that holds a nation together is a social pattern of value. They are completely different from each other because they are at different evolutionary levels. And they are completely different from the biological pattern that can cause the most sceptical of intellectuals to leap from a hot stove. These patterns have nothing in common except the historic evolutionary process that created all of them. But that process is a process of value evolution.

Sometimes a Dynamic increment goes forward but can find no latching mechanism and so fails and slips back to a previous latched position. Whole species and cultures get lost this way. Sometimes a static pattern becomes so powerful it prohibits any Dynamic moves forward. In both cases the evolutionary process is halted for a while.

Evolution goes forward by Dynamic increments. DQ is pushing the move forward. Static patterns are left in the wake of this push; left in the wake of the cutting edge of the present.

At each level of value evolution, from the Inorganic, through Organic, up into Social value evolution and Intellectual value evolution, Dynamic increments are moving value evolution forward.

I want to stress this because at the same time we must remember that DQ is also the goal of the same value centred evolutionary process.

As Robert Pirsig writes in Lila:

All life is a migration of static patterns of quality toward Dynamic Quality.

There is no teleological goal in the sense of a pre-ordained state - the goal is the ‘It’ found in Eugen Herrigels book.

If this is a helpful way of discussing the evolution of spv, then we may be able to use the bow and arrow as a metaphor for this evolutionary process at work.

Question: What is this bow doing when it is left alone leaned up against the wall?

Answer: It is static - it is not doing much.

Suggestion: If the bow is drawn until it snaps, we may consider this to be a chaotic state - the bow is no longer viable or useful.

Somewhere between the static state and the chaos state is the ‘it’ or DQ.

As the bow is tensioned all static patterns converge toward coherence - an area either side of DQ - an aura surrounding it perhaps, between chaos and stasis.

Fig 1. Static quality relationships.

Fig 2. Chaotic static quality relationships.

Fig 3. Coherent static quality relationships.

Now let us imagine the bow and arrow to be the sum total of all our intellectual patterns of value. Let us imagine we are Henri Poincaré for example, and we are thinking about those stuck fuchsian equations Robert Pirsig talks about in ZMM. Poincaré thinks about these equation, that is to say, he holds them in his intellectual gaze and searches for beauty and elegance.

Poincaré quoted in ZMM:

Mathematics… isn’t merely a question of applying rules, any more than science. It doesn’t merely make the most combinations possible according to certain fixed laws. The combinations so obtained would be exceedingly numerous, useless and cumbersome. The true work of the inventor consists in choosing among… a large number of solutions to a problem… on the basis of ‘mathematical beauty,’ of the harmony of numbers and forms, of geometric elegance.

As he thinks about the equations, Poincaré draws into tension the sum total of his intellectual static patterns of value. The tension grows and grows, and at a sublime point or moment, DQ reveals itself.

SHOT!

There ‘It’ is! Suddenly, there is the solution to the Fuchsian equations also - the Bulls eye is hit, and Intellectual value evolution has moved on a Dynamic increment.

We can imagine, if we wish, all levels of evolution searching for that point at which DQ reveals itself, from subatomic particles to DNA, Laws and equations, each move forward may be brought about by a tension between sq patterns themselves, eventually reaching an exceptionally coherent relationship that allows DQ to influence their arrangement.

It is important to remember that all this is a static description of a Dynamic process, and we must not subordinate and include DQ in spv.

So what use is coherence if it is simply an additional static description?

Surely we already have a DQ/sq division of Quality in the MOQ and coherence is simply more sq?

I agree coherence is definitely more sq.

But coherence may be sq generated by the MOQ itself as a consequence of applying the DQ/sq division to Zen Art?

I am not sure.

The Zen Archer waits for DQ to reveal itself so the person, the art and the work are all one.

A mathematician waits for DQ to reveal itself for the same reason and discovers new solutions to equations.

Politicians, like John Hume, who received a honorary doctorate from Liverpool University during the same ceremony at which Anthony received his doctorate in philosophy two days ago waits for DQ to reveal itself; in John Hume’s case, to reveal a way toward the resolution of dreadful social conflict: that is David Hume‘s art and work, and being.

To sum up:

The Metaphysics of Quality divides Quality into DQ and sq. The fine edge where DQ reveals itself may indicate a further differentiation of sq into three relationships:

Chaos - Coherence - Stagnation.

QUALITY

DQ - sq

Chaos - Coherence - Stagnation.

If we reject subjects and objects in this room and wish to replace them with an MOQ description of static patterns, then we may be able to state that relationships between the patterns themselves are either chaotic, coherent or stagnating depending upon how they are responding to Dynamic Quality.

From what I have seen and heard today it seems to me the Intellectual patterns in this room are highly coherent.

Thank you.