Greetings Krimel, Aren't yang/yin equivalent to active and passive. That sounds like more a description of static patterns. I think the Buddhist Emptiness/form much closer to DQ/sq. Maybe you can explain a little more about yin/yang.
Marsha On Jun 4, 2010, at 10:13 AM, Krimel wrote: > [Krimel] >> First of all I think DQ and SQ correspond exactly to Yang and Yin. The >> point you seem to miss is that dividing the world is not mandatory. > > [Bo] > I think both dividing and the DQ/SQ division is mandatory (feel free to > insert Lao Tsu and Yang/Yin). > > [Krimel] > I appreciate the effort to stay focused on the central issues. Clearly this > is one of them. You are not just saying that division is necessary but that > a particular kind of division is necessary. Maybe it is a translation > problem. Why do you think this is "required"? > > If you mean that humans, in virtue of their very nature, are required to > make divisions; I probably agree. But that would seem to put the recognition > of division squarely in the biological level. Again, I would agree with > that. > > [Bo] > Look. Pirsig had the insight that Quality = Reality, but this meant > nothing so he soon started on a dualism based on Quality. > > [Krimel] > The problem I see with this is that you have misunderstood not JUST what > Pirsig has said but something very fundamental about the nature of "saying". > The statement "Quality=Reality" means that these particular shapes on a page > and the sounds associated with then can be used interchangeably and that > when you produce one you might as well be producing the other. > > A further meaning of the statement "Quality=Reality" is that these symbols > point to a set of experiences I have had and I associate with them and that > I believe my experiences are of such a similar nature to yours that you can > make this association as well. Assuming that this actually is the case, that > our experiences are similar enough for this to work, is iffy at best. The > term I would use for it is "lossy" it is a computer term and means that > something is always lost in translation. The issue is how much is lost in > translation and how much does it matter? Have you ever attended a lecture or > meeting and recorded it? While you are there in person that sound of the > spoken words seems crystal clear and intelligible yet when you listen to the > recording you hear air conditioners, street sounds, whispered conversations, > rattling papers etc. In person you don't notice this because you are focused > on the "signal" or what is being said and you ignore the "noise", or all > those distracting background sounds. The recording device does not make this > distinction and listening to the playback is sometimes difficult. In > communication "signal" and "noise" come in a wide variety of forms > especially when we attempt to communicate about abstract ideas. > > The genius of the Greeks was to try to use symbols that were as free of > noise and as precise as possible. They tried to created an ideal world of > pure signal and very little noise. Pirsig points to this when he speaks > about mathematics, you probably know where he does this better than I, but > he says something about mathematics being a set of symbols without > ambiguity. > > This is the real chore of the intellectual level; reducing ambiguity or the > signal to noise ratio. I could go on about noise as entropy or signal as SQ > but I hope the point is sufficiently clear. > > I find James' distinction between perception and conception extremely > helpful here. James maintains that perception is continuous. It is not > composed of individual elements. It flows like a "stream of consciousness". > In Ant's recent video it was absolutely hysterical to hear dmb expounding on > Pirsig's metaphor of "the cutting edge of reality" being the front end of a > train rolling down a track only moments after talking about the very essay > in which James explictly condemns the use of this metaphor, but that's > another story. > > Concepts according to James are the discrete units that we use to cut up our > continuous experience into manageable units, words, ideas, communicable > patterns of thought. This distinction between discrete and continuous I > would say is a metaphysical cut of the sort that Pirsig talks about in Lila. > It has some correspondence with Yin/Yang and SQ/DQ and I think it could be > argued that it has played at least as important a role in the development of > western civilization as the S/O, mind/matter spilt. > > If you look backwards in time you see all those ancient civilizations. Our > evidence of them is not in what they said but in what they did. They built > things and by their ruins we know them. In order to build something that > lasts thousands of years you need architecture. Architecture depends on the > ability to carve continuous space into discrete units of measurement. What > unit you select to use is entirely arbitrary but as long as long as it is > unambiguous, replicable and transmittable to other workers you can construct > the marvels of the ancient world. > > One of the next great advances in civilization comes from our ability to > carve the continuous flow of time into discrete units. Galileo was able to > work out some of the laws of motion using only his pulse as a measure of > discrete units of time. Without the ability to standardize units of time > navigation an mechanization were problematic. > > What we see in present time is refinements in our ability to carve > continuous space and time into discrete units of such precision that we > build not only skyscrapers of nanobots. We can measure not just the cosmos > and land on Mars but we can reaching into the molecules of life and recode > DNA. All of this is the result of our increasing ability to amplify the > signal and reduce the noise. Or as one might say in MoQ terms to convert > dynamic quality into static quality. > > This is all very useful, very pragmatic but it is not mandatory or even > required for communication. When Pirsig presents us with Plato's question: > > And what is good, Phædrus, > And what is not good... > Need we ask anyone to tell us these things? > > The answer is clearly, "No." > > When I experience something of positive value, let's say sex because I am > 2000 miles away from my wife right now and have been for a number of weeks > but that too is another story. But when we have a positive experience our > pleasure centers are stimulated and we have physiological response; > increased heart rate, changes in the electrical conductivity of our skin, > activation of small and large muscle groups. Converse responses occur when > we have negative experiences that stimulate our pain centers. Not only do > the changes occur in us automatically but we are able without conception to > recognize them in others. These are emotional responses. They are > biologically encoded and biologically decoded or biological communication. > This is a characteristic of mammals and in most species the signal to noise > ratio is pretty small. Ours may be the only species capable of altering this > ratio. We can lie and lying is a skill acquired by our best and brightest at > a fairly early age. > > [Bo] > He posits Quality at the top of a "box" diagram that splits into Dynamic > and Static. This leads to the false impression that there remains an > unscathed Quality atop the DQ/SQ dichotomy, and made the latter-day > Pirsig (in the Summary of 2005) say that the MOQ is the "static" part of > a still greater Quality/MOQ meta-metaphysics. This is horribly wrong IT > IS QUALITY WHICH IS DIVIDED!. Must be. To say that reality is > something is useless. There were no metaphysics that said that reality > was NOT Quality, it was just SOM that said that qualities were > subjective. > > [Krimel] > Thus far I have tried to show that while conception is not mandatory; it is > useful and it becomes increasing useful as we become more precise in carving > things up. Again, you mistake the way we elect to carve things up for the > thing being carved. We have to carve to communicate. But it is error to > confuse conception with perception or the discrete with the continuous. > Pirsig's statement about the MoQ are static entities and he has elected to > do precisous little to elaborate on them. Your ideas about the MoQ and your > expression of them are constructed of static units. Quality is continuous. > "Quality" is discrete. Pirsig makes this pretty clear when he talks about > mystics being concerned with Quality and having distain for the > metaphysicians concern with "Quality". > > Back to my earlier concern with lack of sex. If the experience of sex is all > that concerns you, you might as well masturbate. But if you want to have sex > with someone else, you are going to need to learn to communicate. How well > you communicate will play a major role in how successful you are. You are > confusing having sex with which words you would use to convince someone else > to join you. But at least you aren't proclaiming the virtue of flying solo. > > [Bo] > Please apply your intelligence on this ... > > [Krimel] > As a recent lurker I can say with confidence I would not have made it to > this point in so lengthy a post but please try and do the same. > > p.s. I probably should proof read this a couple of times but I hear a baby > crying so alas, I regret whatever noise my shoddy typing has introduced into > the intended signal. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> It is just useful. Making distinctions and creating concepts is what >> sets us apart from other animals but how we do it is entirely up to us. > >> [Bo] >> I accept every word, but you said that DQ/SQ corresponds to the >> Yang/Yin and I agree. There can't be any Tao without the Yang/Yin >> arrangement and no Quality without the DQ/SQ. If the mere act of >> saying so is the sin, how do you avoid language? >> >> [Krimel] >> You have this backwards the Tao is the Tao regardless of how we elect >> to describe it. As I said, Lao Tsu does not use the terms. What he >> says is this: >> >> Even the finest teaching is not the Tao itself. >> Even the finest name is insufficient to define it. >> Without words, the Tao can be experienced, >> and without a name, it can be known. >> >> You can avoid language by not speaking but if you want to communicate >> you have to have concepts. You have to divide continuous experience >> into discrete units. How we choose to do that is what we are talking >> about here. This is where Pirsig is wielding his analytical knife to >> reslice Lao Tsu's pie. The task of metaphysics is to decide on the >> most fundamental units of this division. One way to do this would be >> mind/matter another static/dynamic. You could pick good/evil or >> natural/supernatural. Many ancient people chose earth, air, fire and >> water; or the three states of matter and the power that transforms >> them. >> >> [Bo] >> But for Goodness' sake the MOQ "argues" that DQ is and will remain >> undefined. Again muster your resources and try to come to grips with >> this issue. >> >> [Krimel] >> Quality is undefined. >> >> DQ and SQ are concepts we use to talk about it. They are definitions >> and they are both definable and specifiable. In fact the biggest >> problem I have with the AWGIs is their insistence that DQ is >> "betterness". DQ, change, can be disastrous. In fact disaster is a >> form of DQ. Even the Jews got this point. In Isaiah it is written: "I >> form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil, >> saith the Lord. >> >> 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/md/archives.html >> >> > > > 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/md/archives.html > > 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/md/archives.html ___ 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/md/archives.html
