Hello everyone On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 7:09 PM, Mary <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Dan, > >> > Hi Mary >> >> Forgive me, but I thought the Metaphysics of Quality is all about >> patterns. But you could be right. Still, in the framework of >> "subject/object metaphysics, there are only subject and objects. If I >> may ask, where are patterns located in such a scheme? >> > [Mary replies] > > Not to belabor, but according to Pirsig, everything is a set of patterns, > including the Intellectual Level.
Dan: Yes, but that isn't in question. > >> >> >Explaining patterns, examining >> > patterns, comparing and contrasting patterns. By definition, SOM >> can't >> > address an 'unpattern'. The reason we have so much trouble >> communicating >> > the essence of 'unpatterns' to SOMists is precisely because they >> cannot be >> > addressed in the realm of patterns. The first cut at Dynamic Quality >> is >> > experience. In the instant we've 'experienced', it becomes one of 2 >> things >> > in the second cut - a subject or an object. That's unfortunate, >> because >> > once we've sliced things up as subjects and objects, we can no longer >> talk >> > about Quality, or Values, or Morals. We're hard-wired that way. Not >> our >> > fault, just our disability. >> >> Dan: >> In the framework of the MOQ, Dynamic Quality IS experience. Static >> quality is the fallout. Subject and objects are convenient terms for >> patterns of value as long as it is remembered that they are just >> that... convenient terms. There are no subject and objects in the >> framework of the MOQ and in fact the MOQ was invented as an antidote >> to just such. >> > > [Mary replies] > > I am sorry to say it, but I have to disagree. Dynamic Quality is not > experience. Dynamic Quality can be experienced, but it is not experience. Dan: During work on LILA'S CHILD, I had the opportunity to ask Robert Pirsig about this: RMP Annotation 57 In the MOQ time is dependent on experience independently of matter. Matter is a deduction from experience. DG: Could you elaborate on what you mean by “independently of matter”? I can see that time is dependent on experience but am having a difficulty with the rest of your first sentence, especially in the context of your second sentence. RMP: I think the trouble is with the word, “experience.” It can be used in at least three ways. It can be used as a relationship between an object and another object (as in Los Angeles experiencing earthquakes.) It is more commonly used as a subject-object relationship. This relationship is usually considered the basis of philosophic empiricism and experimental scientific knowledge. In a subject-object metaphysics, this experience is between a preexisting object and subject, but in the MOQ, there is no pre-existing subject or object. Experience and Dynamic Quality become synonymous. Change is probably the first concept emerging from this Dynamic experience. Time is a primitive intellectual index of this change. Substance was postulated by Aristotle as that which does not change. Scientific “matter” is derived from the concept of substance. Subjects and objects are intellectual terms referring to matter and nonmatter. So in the MOQ experience comes first, everything else comes later. This is pure empiricism, as opposed to scientific empiricism, which, with its pre-existing subjects and objects, is not really so pure. I hope this explains what is said above, “In the MOQ time is dependent on experience independently of matter. Matter is a deduction from experience.” DG: Yes, this does help, thank you. What bothers me slightly—I am sure I am not seeing it in the proper light yet—is how experience can be synonymous with Dynamic Quality? Isn’t experience that which we define? RMP: Dynamic Quality is defined constantly by everyone. Consciousness can be described is a process of defining Dynamic Quality. But once the definitions emerge, they are static patterns and no longer apply to Dynamic Quality. So one can say correctly that Dynamic Quality is both infinitely definable and undefinable because definition never exhausts it. Dan comments now: If you read this carefully, I think you will see your mistake. "There is no pre-existing subject or object." Mary: > By the time DQ is experienced, it has become a static pattern already. Can > you name a static pattern of value? If you can, I propose that what you > have really done is objectify it into an object or subject. At the point of > awareness it's already too late. Dan: In the MOQ, everything is composed of patterns of value. Everything. So, no, Mary. You are objectifying the intellectual level, which is the beginning of your problem. I've spent years trying to get through to Bodvar about this, without success. THERE IS NO SUBJECT AND OBJECT IN THE MOQ. PERIOD. THEY ARE CONVENIENT SHORTHAND FOR PATTERNS OF VALUE! Dan 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
