Squonk said to Ron: My own view is that the moq poorly states the relationship between DQ and sq. I think the term sq needs to be replaced by a spectrum of patterns which convey their dynamic status.
Ron replied to Squonk: I agree, coincidentally I'm in pursuit of this very concept as we speak. I'm researching how Aristotle used the abstract concrete distinction and propose to substitute Dq/Sq in it's stead. Comprehensively what it would do is provide a context in which DQ/SQ may operate in. I think... dmb says: Hmmm. I think the hierarchy of levels already conveys the spectrum that Squonk seeks for the MOQ. The biological level is more dynamic than the inorganic, the social is more dynamic than the biological and the intellectual level of static quality is the most dynamic. It seems a bit clumsy and confusing to say "dynamic patterns" or "dynamic static patterns". It seems to undermine the first and most basic distinction in the MOQ, but if I understand it the idea can be pretty well expressed by saying that the higher levels of static quality have structures that are more open to change, are more flexible and are better able to respond to DQ. I mean, "open structure" isn't an inherently contradictory phrase in the same way that "dynamic static quality" is, but I think it retains Squonk's meaning. I'd be careful about substituting Aristotle for anything in the MOQ, Ron. You might recall that in ZAMM the word Pirsig uses to characterize Aristotle is "asshole". I kid you not. The narrator has a fondness for him, but Phaedrus sees him as a prime enemy in many ways. I guess it would be possible to work around that, but just think about what a particular object is according to the Lila quote I posted yesterday, where the object is a set of patterns derived from experience. From this perspective, particulars are universals. In the primary empirical reality, there are no concrete objects per se. This requires a pretty substantial re-conceptualization of those basic categories. I've found that James and Dewey both have a version of the static/dynamic distinction. James uses those terms exactly in his last works and Dewey, if memory serves, uses "stability and flux" among other terms. I can almost promise that these two pragmatists will illuminate the terms, if you care to take a look. They have quite a bit in common with Pirsig and would more or less shed light on the whole MOQ. That discovery was one of the most exciting intellectual adventures I ever had, and it continues to thrill me. If its only half as fun for you, it'll still be well worth the effort. Thanks, dmb _________________________________________________________________ Making the world a better place one message at a time. http://www.imtalkathon.com/?source=EML_WLH_Talkathon_BetterPlace 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/
