On Tuesday 27 May 2008 11:16 AM Krimel writes to DM: DM: That's right. I am suggesting law is a good metaphor for describing SQ behaviours of organic and inorganic patterns, but DQ happens too and either we understand this in terms of chance or we might want to suggest there is more to DQ than chance, as there is more to human behaiour than chance or law-like habits. Both nature and human beings are creative and chance is not a full enough description of what is going on. Exlusive talk of chance and law can be used to understand SQ, but this leaves us with SOM and neglects the reality of DQ, the whole point of Pirsig's MOQ. [Krimel] Obviously I think that probabilistic explanations are more than up to the task and that talking about DQ _is_ talking about chance. When, here and elsewhere, you ascribe volition to DQ I think it is misguided. I don't think it is a useful or enlightened way to think about things. In fact I think it is useless, illusory and flatly obscures what is going on. Krim: It allows an purely naturalistic universe in which things evolve slowly from the bottom up. DM: Does anyone here disagree? [Krimel] I suspect some do but do they? Anyone? Anyone? Hi DM, Krimel and all,
IMO To discuss the undefined, seems difficult with no reference point. DQ has no agency. It is a description of a limited order in existence analogous to the octave found in music. It is meaningful in an evolutionary order in existence for manifest SQ. How is it found in awareness? I assume it is in the ³undefined² aspect of my consciousness, the social order in evolution. I acknowledge an order in existence! I call this order evolution pointed to by metaphor or analogy. My knowledge of evolution is from the top down. My experience of evolution is from the bottom up. DQ is an undefined word for this order. Chance is unlimited manifestation. It includes an order in existence without analogy to the order itself. DQ is a more limited metaphor of order in existence. Joe On 5/27/08 11:16 AM, "Krimel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > DM: That's right. I am suggesting law is a good metaphor for describing > SQ behaviours of organic and inorganic patterns, but DQ happens > too and either we understand this in terms of chance or we might > want to suggest there is more to DQ than chance, as there is more to > human behaiour than chance or law-like habits. Both nature and human > beings are creative and chance is not a full enough description of what > is going on. Exlusive talk of chance and law can be used to understand SQ, > but this leaves us with SOM and neglects the reality of DQ, the whole > point of Pirsig's MOQ. > > [Krimel] > Obviously I think that probabilistic explanations are more than up to the > task and that talking about DQ _is_ talking about chance. When, here and > elsewhere, you ascribe volition to DQ I think it is misguided. I don't think > it is a useful or enlightened way to think about things. In fact I think it > is useless, illusory and flatly obscures what is going on. > > Krim: It allows an purely naturalistic universe in which things > evolve slowly from the bottom up. > > DM: Does anyone here disagree? > > [Krimel] > I suspect some do but do they? Anyone? Anyone? > > > > 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/
