Hello Andre 9 Feb, :
> '...for pragmatic reasons...Pirsig terms the continually changing flux > of immediate reality "Dynamic Quality" while any concept abstracted > from this flux is termed a pattern of "static quality". IT IS IMPORTANT > TO KEEP IN MIND THAT 'DYNAMIC QUALITY IS NOT A CONCEPT BUT ONLY A > REFERRING TERM FOR IMMEDIATE EXPERIENCE Regardless how you twist and turn, if your deepest distinction is the crypto-somish "pre-conceptual/conceptual" (call it "immediate/differentiated experience" if you like) you end up in paradoxes. "Not a concept, but a referring term" I don't want to be sarcastic, but you must see the futility of trying to escape language ... in the SOM sense, while language in the MOQ sense is without this problem. And why this pompous "concept" term? What you mean is language and that of language as an inner, subjective shadow of the outer, objective world is SOM to the core. Don't you hear the reverberations from the Greeks' "apparent/permanent" up through the millenniums? > i.e '* The purpose of the description of "Dynamic Quality" as 'the > continually changing flux of immediate reality'is to block the notion > that Dynamic Quality is some kind of object. To try to take that > definition as some kind of philosophic object itself is to pervert the > purpose for which the statement was intended'. * Dynamic Quality is > useful as a term as it allows reference to 'conceptual unknowns'(as > implied by the physicist Niels Bohr)i.e quantities that are ineffable > whether, for example, in the context of mystical and aesthetic > experiences or in the context of wave-particles in quantum mechanics.( > The Role of... McWatt, Jan. 1999, my capitals, Pirsig's bold type). Yes, but again: The MOQ has a "DQ", isn't that good enough? Why invoke a still more ineffable Quality outside of the MOQ? And speaking about Quantum Physics, the physicists repeat that there is no quantum reality outside the equations. Exactly what young Phaedrus said before old Pirsig turned SOMist with this Quality/MOQ meta-metaphysics. > The employment of language is, with all respect, a different issue and > its limitation is not only confined to the MoQ. " As Chuang Tzu > pointed out, this proclivity of language to talk about things it > cannot really talk about is especially apparent in the subjects of > philosophy and religion. " (The Tao of Symbols, James N. Powell) and, > I hasten to add quantum mechanics/physics. (Thank you Khoo for the > reference). For the nth. time. With the crypto--SOMish "real reality/conceptual reality" one's starting point one ends in paradoxes, even if your name is Chuang Tzu. What medium did CT employ to point out this profound truth?. MOQ's starting point is DQ/SQ and in it language is an social patterns, nothing about all static levels being conceptual or - Good Grief - that the whole MOQ being conceptual. It was Craig who asked the apt question if the inorganic pattern called "stone" is mere conceptual? > I think it is fair to suggest that Pirsig, having gone beyond > (through) the two horns discussed in ZAMM, thereby arriving at the > Quality epiphany he subsequently extrapolated his metaphysical > 'system' from returning to this 'immediate experience' regularly (as > discussed and unfolded in Lila...'divine play'). Yes, Phaedrus went beyond the horns to his first tentative "moq" where Dynamic Quality's one and only (static) fallout was the said "horns", namely SOM. But please note that in ZAMM he speaks about Quality being "pre-intellectual" and SOM being "intellectual", noting about pre-conceptual and conceptual. > I must add Pirsigs comment in the McWatt paper that the MoQ and Lila > suffer from 'sketchiness' arguing that the 'subject is so large and so > different from conventional understanding it needs more space than > other systems'. Whether this is reasonable or acceptable I'll leave to > you. I have made my view on this quite clear in other posts. The most sketchy part was/is the intellectual level. He amended it in the PT letter but it remained just as vague. Fist he says that the level arrived with the Greeks which means the SOL, but trust Pirsig he then proffered a definition (manipulation of symbols) which is back to square one. And then the impossible (non-S/O) Oriental "intellectual level. But notice that the MOQ isn't static, but very much under construction, it is you (people) who cling to Pirsig's sketch as a "holy scripture". Keep thinking one day a light-bulb will switch on. Bodvar 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/
