Morning Ham I should make clear that Mr Pirsig is not my favourite author, and I've always been largely convinced of "the logic of essentialism" We seem to have a few key differences in how the models are put together and in how far they each stray from a Pirsigian system. My feeling throughout each of our exchanges has been that the fundamentals are largely identical but differences appear where artificial elements have been are introduced as a product of socio-cultural conditioning. For instance your insistence on the primacy of human [consciousness], and mine on [it's] ubiquity. I still think this makes you susceptible to a kind of god botherer's group solipsism (oxywhat?), but by the opposite token I get accused of doctor doolittlesque animism. Anyhow it is perhaps better for me to argue for myself and drift off the standard MOQ model in order to discover what common ground there might be.
Essence - As you leave it undefined, you have no more basis on which to assert it to be static as you do to ascribe to it any other adjective, (absolute, unchanging, immutable etc, you just can't know) this is a criticism I would also level at Pirsig. I think that in both systems however it's the attempt to assign descriptive to the indescribable creates a weakness, the concept is sound. In my version, the ground stuff/essence is exactly analogous to awareness, and is everything. My own experience tells me that awareness is a dynamic process, but that's totally relative so may be false, like if you stand on a train and watch another train pull away, how can you tell which one is actually moving? For me patterns are not "made dynamic by" DQ/essence they are patterns IN DQ/essence, and are thus "of the source" (to which I resolutely ascribe no adjective). This seemed very clear to me on reading Pirsig, but several MOQers have (Platt for instance) on a couple of occasions been clear that this is not in line with mainstream MOQ interpretation (if such a thing exists). The secondary dualism in the MOQ is thus more stark than I would have it, to compare the two side by side, my straw man MOQer would say that there are two kinds of quality: SQ and DQ, I would say there is one: D(sic)Q(sic), and again to resort to analogy, the most obvious explanatory imagery is that of a standing wave in fluid. "Reality" being exclusively a property of the (non-temporally) "static" pattern (wave) that stands in its "essential" media. The wave is differentiated only by the fact that it has perceived. (note tense, and carefully assigned ownership) Evolution and levels - IMO, MOQ levels have been arbitrarily assigned and are not fundamental to the system. Differences in pattern complexity are certainly real and certainly occur as a product of evolution, but evolution itself is a defined system and is thus an entirely static pattern, it is constantly "made by" what the MOQer calls DQ , but to link evolution in its physical sense directly to the emergence of actualised patterns from the source is very wrong. More fundamental level distinctions would be delineated by derivative order shifts where L1 is pattern, L2 is pattern of patterns, etc.. rather than tapping into obvious scientific classifications (although based on TOPOS theory both (and others) are valid, as the set assignation will in part define the moral conditions that operate). I do consider the moral order stuff to be approximately valid, perhaps a useful discussion would centre on "motive" vs "force" in explaining the movement of particles? The imprecision of the language makes my eyes water and its hard to reasonably expect mutual understanding when I have to riddle everything with made up punctuation just to keep track of my own train of thought. Still I eagerly anticipate your thoughts. (I generally seem to get sidetracked at this point so am now fully expecting something horrible to land on my desk). Jos > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Ham Priday > Sent: 23 July 2007 19:58 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [MD] Aristotle & DQ > > > Hi Jos [David mentioned]-- > > > [On 7/22 Ham made this comment]: > > "What [Pirsig] wants to suggest is that Dynamic Quality is the > > SOURCE of Change. But there is no equivalent definition for > > Static Quality as a "source" or "fulfillment" of DQ, and such > > a notion is illogical and empirically untrue" > > Jos: > > Can you explain this criticism a little further please, > > my feeling is that you're critisising a mis-statement of Pirsig. > > Can you convince me otherwise? > > Probably not, because your favorite author sees existents (natural > phenomena) as fixed "patterns" that are made "dynamic" by DQ. > Obviously, I > do not share this view. He also does not acknowledge an > immutable Source > (Creator, or prime mover), which I do. The cause or source > of what David > calls 'dynamei' is itself "static" in that it is absolute and > unchanging. > That's why I said that to attribute dynamism to Essence is a > perversion of > metaphysics. > > I also said: > > Negation is the beginning of number, difference, process > and modality, > > none of which is integral to the absolute source. > > Evolution is a process which can be defined as the > incremental change of > nature or mankind > as perceived in time and space. As such it is dynamic, that > is, subject to > the physical laws and conditions of existential reality > (also, incidentally, > defined by man). To impute the limitations of . finitude on > the infinite > source is to deny that reality is anything but "the way we > experience it", > or that there is any such thing as reality beyond the physical world. > Perhaps that explains why Pirsig refused to support his thesis with a > metaphysical ontology. Had he done so, he would have had to > either refute > or affirm an uncreated source, in either case offending his acolytes. > > In common parlance, that which changes or is in in transition > is "dynamic". > That which is constant and immutable is "static". Poetic > metaphors and > euphemisims not accepted. > > Does this at least convince you of the logic of my position? > > Regards, > Ham > > > 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > > This email was received from the INTERNET and scanned by the > Government Secure Intranet Anti-Virus service supplied by > Cable&Wireless in partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM > Certificate Number 2006/04/0007.) In case of problems, please > call your organisations IT Helpdesk. > Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, > monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes. > > > This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the > attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, > disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you are > not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies and > inform the sender by return e-mail. > > This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the > attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, > disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you are > not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies and > inform the sender by return e-mail. > > This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may > be monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of > Justice. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, > and e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a > responsibility to ensure laws are not broken when composing > or forwarding e-mails and their contents. > This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail. This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail. This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents. The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet Anti-Virus service supplied by Cable&Wireless in partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2006/04/0007.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free. Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes. 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
