Ron,
I find this to be contradictory and I know we (as in this forum) have had
discussion on whether the levels are continuous and overlap, or are discrete
and conflict. But, maybe what I put forward below might help clarify these two
seemingly contradictory passages by Pirsig.
My take on levels and what's between the levels: I find static quality to
emerge from dynamic quality, thus, it's not linear for me, it's more like
rising mountains. Here's my analogy. The valleys are dynamic quality and the
mountains rising out of dynamic quality are static quality. Static quality
rising out of dynamic quality, but never detaches from dynamic quality. One
could still find dynamic quality in the mountains with the blooming flowers
emerging from the mountains, so, in this case, the mountains are dynamic
quality and the blooming emerging flowers are static quality. Simply put,
static quality emerges out of dynamic quality but never detaches from dynamic
quality and between static patterns one may find dynamic quality as the
transitional state between static patterns where the static patterns are not
readily defined.
Anyways, to not detract from your original question too far, I find this
to be very conflicting. Pirsig says one thing and then says the complete
opposite, unless... When Pirsig says 'but not all biological patterns are
social' this is the discrete part. What about the 'all social patterns are
biological', maybe the defining here is not focused on 'What are the social
patterns', so, therefore the definition is about biological patterns only, but
once one defines the social patterns or the social patterns emerge from the
biological patterns a clear distinction can be made, thus, a clear discrete
categorization can be developed. To make a clear distinction between social
and biological patterns, they need to be discrete patterns, patterns that
differ from each other.
what do you think?
SA
--- On Thu, 8/28/08, Ron Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Ron Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: [MD] Core problemS
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Thursday, August 28, 2008, 2:05 AM
> Krimel submits:
> "This classification of patterns is not very original,
> but the
> Metaphysics of Quality allows an assertion about them that
> is unusual.
> It says they are not continuous. They are discreet. They
> have very
> little to do with one another. Although each higher level
> is built on a
> lower one it is not an extension of that lower level. Quite
> the
> contrary. The higher level can often be seen to be in
> opposition to the
> lower level, dominating it, controlling it where possible
> for its own
> purposes."
>
> Is: present tense of the verb "to be."
>
> Ron:
> All I can counter with is what Pirsig wrote to Paul Turner
> which
> seems to be the most consistent with his theories.
> " When getting into a definition of the intellectual
> level much clarity
> can be gained by recognizing a parallel with the lower
> levels. Just as
> every biological pattern is also inorganic, but not all
> inorganic
> patterns are biological; and just as every social level is
> also
> biological, although not all biological patterns are
> social; so every
> intellectual pattern is social although not all social
> patterns are
> intellectual."
>
> Ron:
> Core problem, any insights? a consensus would be
> interesting.
>
>
>
>
>
> 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/
