Hi Chris [Ron mentioned] -- I want to credit you, along with Ron and Ian, for helping me understand the MoQ ontology. But you've provided some additional thoughts on the "details" that I think are worth exploring -- if I may.
Concerning Dynamic Quality as a name for what I regard as the fundamental or primary source, you said: > Of course it doesn't describe it properly - Dynamic Quality > is merely the best word we have to describe something that > is fundamentally indefinable =) > The static patterns we can see - and the reason for the > ongoing changes and fluxuations is that they are reacting to > Dynamic Quality - which cannot be defined: rather like a > black hole, we cannot observe it, only the results of it. An interesting, but not very convincing defense for an ill-suited term. Granted that DQ is posited as a "constant flow" or continuum of undifferentiated Quality. But such continuous motion in the absence of a relational reference is really no motion at all. For example, if our galaxy were the only body of matter in infinite space, how would "movement" be determined? What would it be moving_toward_? Since motion is relative, it can only have meaning within a relational system. Now, you might argue that existence is that relational system, except that existence is not primary (in either Pirsig's or my ontology). Rather, existence is derived from the source (Quality or Essence). Dynamics deals with forces related to the motion or equilibrium of entities in a system. It seems to me that this term more properly applies not to the primary nature of the source itself, but its differentiation or breakdown into "existents" (i.e., the patterns or phenomena of relational existence, including its sensible agents). Again, this is an argument for the dynamics of S/O reality, which is relative, as opposed to Quality or Essence which is not. > A meteor is indeed a static pattern of value. Furthermore > all static manifestations of biological level are in some degree > able to react and respond to DQ, that is the whole of it. > The things you name are not separate, they belong to the > biological level of static patterns of value, but maybe they > are in a state where DQ effects them more, I don't know. Indeed, the "effects" (affects?) as presently outlined leave much to the imagination, as is evident from the mass of posts about it on this forum. One would wish that the author had developed his theory as a formal document, instead of leaving it open to speculation from quoted sections of his novels. I know I'm in the minority here, but I'm of the opinion that his refusal to define the fundamental elements of the MoQ on the ground that "trying to define it would destroy the concept" is not a valid excuse for a philosopher. > The MOQ would state that [those] feelings are reactions to > Quality (Dynamic undefined Quality) and can belong to any > level really. The feelings may of course be transformed into > static patterns (Marriage for example being a static social > pattern of value) But when they arise they are (in a MOQ > explanation) reactions to Quality. You say "patterns are static, by their very nature, " and you cite Marriage is an understandable example of a social value. But how do we define processes leading to or away from it, such as courtship, romance, marital rifts, filing for divorce, etc., all of which are events occurring over time rather than static states of matrimony. Would you say that any of these stages are "static patterns". Would at least one or to be "dynamic patterns"? I think I've demonstrated the semantic problem. But now I see that you've convinced Ron that patterns ARE dynamic! [Ron]: > But to be exact, yes you are quite right as I understand it. > So I guess we can answer the thread title by saying > theoretically a pattern is never static. The MoQ is a theory, is it not? Then, theoretically speaking--logically--a pattern must either be dynamic or static. Well, which is it to be, gentlemen? Essentially still confused, 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/
