On Wednesday 2 July 200812:05 PM Ron writes to Squonk and DMB 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.
<snip> Hi Squonk. Ron, DMB and all, Analogues for DQ/SQ. IMO the meaning for undefined DQ is an analogy to an order in Existence. Aristotle wanted to divide existence into real existence (concrete) and intentional existence which the mind creates to hold an (abstracted) essence. Pragmatism questions Aristotle¹s metaphysics SOM, because relationships between SQ is experiential rather than a product of intentional existence in a mind. Bo¹s SOL usefully describes Aristotle¹s division as a level of evolution, the intellectual level. SQ is a manifestation which makes words possible. What a thing is, what it isn¹t, what upholds is described in a word. Linguistics rather than the metaphysics of an abstracted essence defines words, and their changes in meaning. DQ is an analogy for an order in Existence, evolution. It is difficult to imagine an undefined order in existence, necessary for evolution, pragmatically. Pirsig leaves DQ undefined, and any mention of it is only through analogy or metaphor or gesture. I use the musical octave as the analogue for the order for evolution, or ³perhaps² the light spectrum. IMO The relationship between DQ and SQ is that SQ, manifestation, con only be found in an order of Existence DQ, evolution. DQ, as undefined, does not participate in the adjective ³dynamic² when applied to quality except by analogy. When quality is used in evolution, SOL adequately indicates further analogues for different levels. It is possible to conceive of levels of only S, to which SOL may not apply e.g. enlightenment! Joe On 7/2/08 12:15 PM, "Ron Kulp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 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. > > Ron: > I agree, I think by placing it within the context of the four levels it > works just as you and Pirsig explain, its when we start to conceptualize > > DQ and SQ as concrete universal entities in themselves that we begin to > get this conflict in meaning. > > dmb: > 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. > > Ron: > You are absolutely right, it's the transition of abstract to concrete to > anchor an argument in truth in being as a concrete universal that > Phaedrus hates. > Although, what Aristotle touches upon and utilizes for his analytic, > we may also utilize for our MoQ purposes. The linguistic function > does not necessarily need to utilize the grammatical and logical axioms > of Aristotles method of deductive inference. I believe what the whole > enterprise revolves around is this distinction of terms. I believe > we can anchor our Moq argument against SOM at this point. Giving MoQ > a precise and distinctive departure from Aristotle. > > Dmb: > 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. > > Ron: > Coincidentally the continental philosophers started me on this path from > C.S. pierces' work in analytics to James's Pragmatic truth to Pirsigs > Quality. Pirsig has more in common with Aristotle than he may want to > admit. Truth in being. Where they differ is how they attach meaning > to that statement. Where Aristotle creates axioms based on the concept > that what exists are concrete entities, Pirsig describes as patterns of > abstract experience. > > > 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/
