Hi dmb, > David H said: > Are not events, processes, occurrences, water molecules things? When I > picture these things in my mind they are very much static things. If I can > picture it, it's not Dynamic Quality because as you say, Dynamic Quality > isn't any thing. > > dmb says: > Molecules are a prime example of what we mean by things or entities. But > Pirsig is rejecting the metaphysics of substance for a kind of process > philosophy. These are very different visions reality.
Yes, a process. A procession of static things. A process is a static thing. It has a then b then c. The idea of process is even static. When you think of a process is it some thing that your thinking of? Many things? Or do you think of nothing? What is Dynamic Quality anyway? > David H said: > I don't deny that James sees rivers and streams as the best analogy for > experience. As I said earlier, the MOQ expands on James' original pragmatism > and says the best way to break up Quality is between defined and undefined > quality. This truly is its strength. Every one knows what quality is, they > just disagree about how to define it. That simple, very powerful statement > is the very first division of the Metaphysics of Quality. > > dmb says: > The MOQ does alter James's work but it does so by uniting pragmatism and > radical empiricism into a single fabric. But the distinction between static > and Dynamic was already present in James's work. In fact, Pirsig quotes James > twice on that particular point. Pirsig and James both agree that "there must > always be a discrepancy between concepts and reality, because the former are > static and discontinuous while the latter is dynamic and flowing." The next > sentence says, "Here James had chosen exactly the same words Phaedrus had > used for the basic subdivision of the MOQ". Yes, but is Dynamic Quality then the same as James 'dynamic and flowing'? Is Dynamic Quality dynamic and flowing? Is that what it is? They're the same thing? > David H said: > ...Why do you need the wave analogy if you have experience itself? These > things can work together and it is through the perfection of quality that > they do. > > > dmb says: > Why do we need the wave analogy? I don't know if anyone NEEDS it. This > question is, does it help us understand what James and Pirsig are saying. > Like all analogies, the purpose is to help us imagine their ideas. Analogies > help by explaining the new idea in terms of what we already know. In fact, > our conceptual understanding of reality is one great big pile of analogies > and even that description of analogies is itself an analogy. I'd challenge > anyone to say anything without using an analogy. Yes, every thing is an analogy of quality. I think the MOQ is the best analogy there is. 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
