[Ham]
In clarifying my comment on Pirsig to Jos, I defined "dynamic" as change
or transition, and "static" as constant and unchanging. Apparently, you
have a different interpretation of SQ.
[Ron]:
> Interesting, I did not perceive Pirsig as stating this in his
> ontology. I had the impression that Pirsig was stating that all
> existence is dynamic. What we perceive as physical reality are the
> more static patterns of dynamic quality (that which changes slower and
> may be perceived) for there are no true constants and thus there is
> nothing which is immutable or absolute.
>
> I think you are interpreting MOQ. DQ and SQ dualistically.
> Your logic and your ontology seems of a dualistic nature for it rests
> on the tension of opposites.
> When MOQ is interpreted in this light it does not work logically by
> those standards. My impression was that RMP was dropping opposites
> for patterns of value.
Yes, my ontology is dualistic, but not in the way your conception of the
MOQ describes it. Ontology concerns the nature of being, therefore
applies only to existence. The essentialist ontology is a dichotomy of
two mutually exclusive but dependent contingents: proprietary
sensibility (individual
awareness) and otherness (being). Neither of these contingents is
integral to Essence, nor is Essence itself a duality.
Since there are very few definitive statements in Pirsig's philosophy,
it is really inferences or implications that we are debating. You are
saying that a "static pattern" is NOT static but only "changes slower"
than dynamic quality. From that definition I gather that you understand
DQ as a state or mode of high-velocity (perhaps ultra-high frequency?)
transition. I recall reading somewhere that movement (acceleration and
velocity) is always measured against something else, which makes it
relational. Such an ontology would seem to be based on a duality of
relatively slow versus relatively fast patterns. How, then, could
Pirsig be "dropping opposites for patterns of value"? Where has he made
such an assertion?
There are many energy patterns -- molecular motion, for example, or
X-rays -- that are beyond our natural range of perception. Yet, they are
phenomena of our physical world. How do you distinguish such phenomena
from DQ? Or are they one and the same in your view?
[Ron]
In my view they are one in the same with static being the perceivable
which is relational as you stated.
It is all DQ, it is all source (energy?) what is percieved is static
with dynamic relational values. everything is allways changing but at
differing relational rates, thus Einsteins theory of relativity.
DQ and the minds limited perception of it.
[Ham]
Your statement that "there are no true constants and thus there is
nothing which is immutable or absolute" confirms my contention that the
MOQ does not acknowledge a primary source. In fact, it never gets
beyond the physical world. And without that perspective, it is
incapable of providing meaning or purpose to existence relative to an
uncreated source.
[Ron]
you are correct,
Pirsig is "keepin it real" pragmatically he only theorizes on what can
be percieved, I think he
does this so as to avoid conjecture. It is my understanding that each
individual gives meaning
or pupose to existence for we are this uncreated source.
[Ham]
Thanks for defining your conception of the MOQ ontology, Ron. I found
it quite interesting.
[Ron]
Allways a pleasure Ham, is'nt it interesting how many interpetations
arise from reading the
same books? good to have you back.
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/
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/
