Dan, when I offered this idea, it wasn't in all sincerity something I actually believed. It was what I was seeing in other's descriptions which made me think of equating the future and DQ. I agree with you (and Pirsig) that DQ translates to a bit more than the future. That there is a distinctive pull toward the good as a component of reality, has been my contention here almost from the day one. A cosmos without Quality makes as little sense as a rollercoaster without gravity. Was how I put it once upon a time.
This tends toward an Idealistic interpretation, that rubs many wrongly and they think turns DQ into an object - a thing, an existant. However, I may offer that the following sounds quite valid, to a certain perspective. It's certainly not ridiculous. > Dan: > Okay: > > "When A. N. Whitehead wrote that "mankind is driven forward by dim > apprehensions of things too obscure for its existing language," he was > writing about [The Future] True. For what is to be, is all in the future and what is now, cannot comprehend tomorrow in terms of today. > . [The Future] is the pre-intellectual > cutting edge of reality, Especially if you're going to embrace radical empiricism - where the tinyness of the slice of time is significant and thus the moon must be the future, when so many fingers are pointing at it. > the source of all things, completely simple > and always new. Absolutely! By definition the future is always new. [The Future] was the moral force that had motivated > the brujo in Zuni. Yup. For it's the consequences in the future, that motivate all action in the now. > [The Future] contains no pattern of fixed rewards > and punishments. But time and chance happeneth to all. True dat. Written down in some very old books. > [The Future's] only perceived good is freedom and its > only perceived evil is static quality itself-any pattern of one-sided > fixed values that tries to contain and kill the ongoing free force of > life." > The future is the enemy of those who live in the past. I get that. Do you? > > Dan comments: > > As you see, it makes very little sense to say the future is the moral > force that motivated the Brujo. It makes very little sense to say the > future is the pre-intellectual cutting edge of reality since to be > reality it has to exist. You can't get any more "pre" than the future, Dan. And the future doesn't exist. But it will, it's definitely part of reality. It's ALL of reality! Future reality is what we are constantly moving into and experiencing. Experiencing it directly is a worthy goal. > And the future doesn't exist. The future is > an idea we project based on our static quality history. > > It totally destroys what RMP is saying, in my opinion. > > In essence, I agree. I think there is more to the story. I believe DQ contains a good-ward pull such as we experience with gravity. But still, I'm fascinated with how well the parallels fit. > >John: > > It even works better with Jamesian pragmatism - what is the test of the > > good? Future experience. > > Dan: > And just how does one go about testing future experience, John? Are > you aware of what you're saying? > > Dan Not yet Dan. But I will someday... in the future. John 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
