Krimel to Andre: ZMM is about Tao and Lila is about Yin and Yang. Andre to Krimel:
ZMM:Tao Lila: Tao = DQ/SQ= Yin-Yang interplay/S/O interplay= Lila(DQ/interplay) [Krimel] Uh, ok. I think I disagree but I can't be sure because I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. Andre: Hi Krimel, I'm trying to accommodate your terminology (conceptualisation) of Yin and Yang with MoQ terminology. My understanding of Taoism is that the 'forces' of Yin and Yang (male/female, receptive/assertive, positive/negative, black/white etc,) are forces 'revealed' through the Tao in the same way as our Western concepts of subjectivity/objectivity are 'revealed' through the Quality event. Of course I can be wrong /completely misunderstand. [Krimel] I do not understand yin or yang to be forces. They are how the Tao is manifest. We recognize and can name the Tao in terms of its static and dynamic properties. This applies both to perceptual and conceptual reality. Or more properly it is how we conceptualize perception. The whole is revealed in terms of the its static and dynamic relationships. This union of opposites is seen in the relative harmony of relationships. At least that's how I see it. [Andre] In this way ZMM is about the (re)discovery of Quality. Lila is about Quality (Pirsig calls it Dynamic Quality. [Unfortunate, I think, but done to make the contrast with Static Quality]) and Static Quality. So Quality becomes DQ/SQ...unpatterned/patterned. [Krimel] You are not alone in seeing it this way but I think that view is confused. Static and Dynamic are the way that Quality is manifest. They are two sides or rather two polls of a continuum. They are opposites that reveal particular manifestations of Quality. [Andre] Static Quality is ,once again,divided (and again unfortunate IMHO) into subjective and objective (SP's) (Pisig's SODV paper). I equate your Yin/Yang with MoQ's subject/object (I'll probably bore you but, once again I think that 'subject/object' are so SOM loaded that I'd rather see them disappear...I prefer the 'stable' dynamism of Tao's Yin/Yang. [Krimel] I don't think Yin and Yang have much to do with subject and object except as S/O may be understand as its own continuum. [Andre] So, when you say 'Lila is about Yin and Yang' I'd say:No it's about Tao and Yin/Yang. In MoQ: DQ (Tao) / SQ (Yin/Yang). [Krimel] But see what you have achieved? You have removed Quality from the Metaphysics of Quality. Not only does this strike me as absurd in and of itself; but it also makes the adjective "dynamic" meaningless. And for what purpose? [Andre] Pirig only used these terms to make his points clear. DQ simply is the continually changing flux of immediate reality. [Krimel] See? DQ is the continuous flux of experience. It is James' stream of consciousness and Lao Tsu's Way. The present flows. The "past" is our memory or our conceptualizations. It is what you make static out of the Heraclytian river. It is what we share via language. DQ is timeless because it is always now. SQ is fixed in four dimensions. It is patterns of the past. It is projections for the future. It is abstractions from the flux. It seduced the Greeks with its beauty. It took almost two millennia to shake off the errors of top down thinking. We need conceptual static patterns to filter and capture meaning from the flux around us. Indra's net is a living thing. It either catches and make meaning from the flow or it changes in response to it. [Andre] I may be off track here a bit but it is SOM's 'mind' wanting to do the defining, the distinguishing, the dividing. My understanding of the MoQ is that is is opposed to these processes. [Krimel] Mind is what emerges as Indra's neural net filters experience into meaning. [Andre] In this sense we have the same problem as the Quantum level has thrown up: we need to re-define our understandings within a different framework to make better sense of reality. The MoQ is a start in this direction. [Krimel] The MoQ is based on Taoism. This is the metaphysics that underlies Zen. It was conceived out of a millennium of attempts to directly sample the chaos stream. Its understanding of the harmony of opposites squares not only with eastern thinking but is central to western science as well. Evolution is the study of how static patterns form and cohere in a dynamic environment. Behaviorism looks at how habits or static patterns of behaviors form and persist in a changing environment. The cognitive sciences look at how static patterns of thought form and persist in a dynamic environment. As you say physics looks at the interplay of probability at the subatomic level. Information theory looks at how probabilities interact to create meaning from the flow of experience. I think the view you are espousing represents what I consider to be the Zen corruption of the MoQ. That something is undefined does not mean it is not or cannot be understood in some way at some level. It simple means that the unknown cannot be banished. That does not mean that it cannot be constrained. We measure the Value of our conceptual patterns by their utilities in confining the unknown. By how they allow us to make meaning and reduce uncertainty. By how well they allow us to create stasis from flux. That is: The Way of Virtue. 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/
