Hi Ham (and Margaret)
Ham Priday wrote:
While you were complaining to Margaret of my "un-netiquette" behavior, I
was pondering your previous accusation that I had misinterpreted
Pirsig's DQ:
First of all, it's not DQ that is the *primary* source, it's Q.
DQ is a part of Q, not the other way around.
Interesting. Your interpretation would imply that Quality consists of
two parts, one "dynamic" and the other "static". If that's correct, I
assume that 'Q' is, and has always been, a dualistic source that
includes the patterns as a self-contained contingency or potentiality.
That helps me understand why Bo has theorized that "Intellect is the
value of the SQ/DQ divide". You need something to parse "pure Q" into
differentiated patterns, and Intellect may logically be construed as
that agency. So, in effect, the complete cosmology is a qualitative
trilogy consisting of DQ, SQ, plus Intellect.
Wow! That was so many wrongs it almost came out right. :)
Q is not dualistic in its undivided form. The basic formula is:
Quality = Reality = Morality
And no, Bo's theory is that "intellect is the value of the S/O division", not
SQ/DQ.
Another no, in the MoQ, you do *not* need anything to parse Q into patterns.
(Not that you would want to parse it into patterns in the first place, the usual
goal is to get some value out of a quality event).
Remember this?
What is good Phaedrus, and what is not good?
Need we ask anyone to tell us these things?
No, I forgot, you never read the books.
The "complete cosmology" can be described as:
Quality
or, if you open up Q to see what's inside Q:
Dynamic Quality / Static Quality
then, you can open up the SQ box and there you will find the different static
levels.
You present me with a choice of options, neither of which makes sense
because they are both based on existential precepts. You are trying to
explain creation as a space/time process involving objective components
-- galaxies, planets, moons, Bangs, seconds, days, years, etc. -- all
of which are experientially-derived intellectual constructs. What they
don't address is the awareness which is the "knower" of this construct.
Without subjective cognizance you don't have an objective universe.
Which only begs the question about how this "knower" came to be in the first
place. Aren't you tired of that question?
I agree that an object requires a subject. This is described by the Quality
event as Q -> S/O. (Quality produces a Subject and an Object).
However! According to the MoQ, both S and O are the subject from its own point
of view. This means that two atoms colliding in the middle of intergalactic
space are as real as if the atoms would collide in the brand new LHC (Large
Hadron Collider) with hundreds of eager and aware scientists there to observe them.
When will you realize that we won't accept a philosophy that dismisses the ~15
billion years leading up to the first human "knower"?
The MoQ embraces those billions of years, it works *with* those scientists in
LHC, not *against* them. Your essentialism says to the scientists:
- It's thanks to you guys that the universe exists, thanks for observing it. But
hey, there's no need to try to figure out how we got here or what happened
before we started looking at the universe, cause it wasn't there.
You also seem to think Essentialism is founded on biblical doctrine.
Let me
disabuse you of this confusion. Creation is not a chain of events that
started with a cataclysmic event and runs its course from alpha to
omega. That's the scientific paradigm. Nor was the universe created in
six days by a Divine Being, which is Judeo-Christian allegory. Creation
as a human conception, is the appearance of process, difference, and
value as an ongoing relational system. It is the intellectual product
of being-aware (MY primary dichotomy).
Wow, that was cryptic. Whatever do you mean by that? If I understood that right,
you dismiss the scientific paradigm and the biblical version, but you embrace
the "creation as a human conception", right?
And this would be "the appearance of process, difference, and value as an
ongoing relational system."?? I can't even start to guess what that is. Feel
free to elaborate.
But you do keep the discussion as far from the MoQ
as you possibly can.
Not true. As demonstrated above, I strive to reach whatever accord is
possible between two fundamentally different cosmologies which have
Value, and the quest for truth, in common.
We do share the word "value", but that pretty much sums it up. The word are used
in fundamentally different ways. In the MoQ, iron filings can be said to value
magnetic fields, but your version of the word requires a human "valuer".
Not sure the MoQ has much to offer about truth though, especially not a single
truth. "Good" outranks "truth" any day.
Magnus
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/
