Andre: A few posts ago I quoted Pirsig at lenght in the light of the chemistry professor analogy. First things first: DQ is not 'chance', nor 'intent' , nor 'poof'' ,nor anything teleological in the theological sense. It is the undifferentiated aesthetic continuum.
[Krimel] OK, as far as DQ is concerned we are in two thirds agreement. I think Dynamic means change, chance, uncertainty. I really do not see how imputing intention and volition into the inorganic level can be seen as anything other than theology. But maybe you have some sense of why it is not. Andre: I think that the inorganic level is the most wastefull level imaginable! We have no idea how many responses to DQ/from DQ have been delivered and tried out. How many chances, changes and uncertainties have gone on before (and are still going on). Thing is : we are here, we attempt to make sense of all this stuff but from our intellectual/ elevated point of view. As Pirsig says somewhere in Lila: the platypus has been laying eggs and suckling its young for millions of years. It doesn't have any problems...our intellectual static patterns have! Krimel: But a sense of "betterness" does not guarantee the "betterness" will follow. Andre: You are absolutely correct Krimel. It is not 'automatic' anymore. The higher one climbes the evolutionary scale, the more 'freedom from' one experiences. For us, as all static patterns of value, this means we are not tied to the laws of quantum physics nor physics in general, we are not tied to the laws of the jungle. Of course they 'operate' in us and through us, but we have developed responses (freedom) to circumvent them in a way not previously possible. As I said in the previous post to you we have many more choices to respond to DQ and believe me the choices include the rising of a christ or the rising of a hitler. It is up to us as a culture, it is up to us as a species. [Andre] This can only be done in hindsight. Because, as Pirsig says himself, all our intellectualisations after the Q-experience are based on analogues, memories and memories, analogues etc etc. [Krimel] And as noted these can all prove to be wrong. In fact they are all notoriously unrealiable. Andre: It's up to you but you can only go on what you have got and what you know and believe. If you know, intellectually, Good, then follow this, be true to your heart and live accordingly. Share it. [Krimel] Exactly, what survives in not necessarily better than what preceded it. Andre: And that judgement, that interpretation and evaluation depends on your staic patterns. [Krimel] Actually I think Pirsig is saying that sentience is derived from experience and I think the MoQ starts with experience. Personally I agree that this is difficult, confusing and possibly wrong. Andre: I agree that this may be confusing, but he is correct: the awareness that has led him to develop the MoQ, the 'groundwork' that gave him the possibility do be aware/ be sentient..and has given rise to us all, lies at Quality from which sprang inorganic PoV's , from which sprang organic PoV's, from which sprang social PoV's . We need to look after the in/organic SPOV's! It/They are US!! They have us. For what it is worth, Andre 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/
