Hi dmb, Perhaps you are correct, I have read ZAMM many times and each time I come away with something new. I like to think it is consistent, but I cannot recollect the last time. Some of the issue is the inefficiencies of semantics to convey understanding, especially when written. When spoken, there are nuances that help explain. So I do not want to parse this issue.
Yes, fixed is not the best term. What I am talking about is the "ground" of all things. I use this term as Huxley uses it in the Perennial Philosophy. Perhaps it could be called the "measure of all things" (i.e. Protagoras). One must always use a fixed point for reference. If one assumes relativity (like Einstein) then one wanders into relativism. This in my mind is a waste of time, and really no fun. Even relativism is relative, but to what? Pirsig speaks of analogies to analogies to analogies, on the tracks of Quality. In ZAMM, the relativeness of Truth and Goodness (or excellence) are compared, i.e. Plato and the Sophists. Which one envelops the other? Phaedrus says that Quality wins. From this one can interpret that Quality is the "ground". That is what I mean by fixed. Now, it could be an advantage to say that there is no reference point for Quality. And indeed, if reality is everywhere, one is always at the center of it. If being dynamic means, sometimes it's here, and sometimes there, this is kind of like how the electron is seen, it is everywhere one expects it to be, and nowhere unexpected. This can be useful evasion as well. I would take it that for you Change is an Absolute, but change can only be conceptualized with reference points. What are those reference points? We could say that such reference points are everything, or reality, or Quality. Again we used a fixed notion. Also, does change change? If so, then change is just part of something larger (Quality?). Finally, perhaps Ham is a foil. I do not see him this way, but such a notion is useful. In many ways Ham states the exact same thing as others in MoQ, just in a different way. Take the optical illusion of a vase or two faces facing each other. Do you know that one? Now, is it a picture of a vase, or a picture of two faces? Can both be right, because how can it be two different things? We are all looking at the same picture, all of us are right, and it's illuminating to switch between vases and faces. Thanks for the chat, Mark Mark said to dmb: ...And, for the record, Quality is fixed, it's expression in terms of evolution is not. Do not confuse the two. dmb says: Well, to use "fixed" in relation to Quality is an extremely unfortunate use of terms. That is exactly what Pirsig denies in ZAMM's final culminating scenes. There he says that Plato's big mistake was to convert the Good into a "fixed, eternal form" and of course that's why he adopts the term "dynamic", which means "not fixed". Mark continued: If Quality is reality, then you are saying that Reality is not fixed. dmb says: Yes, exactly. That's the main idea. Mark continued: Even if Reality is everchanging, that does not mean that it is not Reality. We are talking about absolutes here. Even an ever-changing perception can be absolute in its change. That horses run can be absolute even if they all run at different speeds, or if some only run in their dreams. Perhaps not a good example, but hopefully you know what I mean. dmb says: When I was in college my girlfriend and I took a trip to NYC and one day when we were walking over to the park a couple of high school girls stopped us and asked us to participate in a little survey. They wanted to if either of us thought there was anything that is permanent or eternal. I laughed and said, "Yea, change. Change is the only thing that never changes". If that's what you mean, I'd agree. Mark said: For the record, imo, Ham adds to the discussion. dmb says: Hmmm. I'm pretty sure you're wrong about that. It could just be that I deleted it without reading it, but I've never seen anything from Ham that adds to the discussion, not about the MOQ anyway. As I see it, Ham has never done anything except defend SOM, which is the MOQ's central enemy. This would be interesting if he first understood why the MOQ attacks it and then disagreed through some kind of critical engagement but instead it is apparently a defense born of complete incomprehension of what's going on here. Sorry, but that's how I see it. It's nothing personal, you understand. He seems like a decent person but as a philosopher his contributions in this forum are nil. _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469228/direct/01/ 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/
