Hi Joe, Evolution is a useful metaphor, depending on how it is used. More below.
On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 1:18 PM, Joseph Maurer <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Andre and All, > > For a long time I accepted the metaphysics of SOM where "Quality" is the > first accident with its claim to existence found in substance. > > Pirsig jumped on the question: How do I know? Very hard. He concluded > DQ/SQ, is reality and this depends on evolution for any explicative power. > Different levels exist and substance is flawed in SOM metaphysics by being > indivisible creating a nightmare for individuality. [Mark] Evolution is a catch phrase for "change". I am not always sure how Pirsig uses it. If we use the biological form of evolution, we can enlighten the conversation. Originally, Darwinian evolution was based on the selective process for morphology. Here we had two interdependent systems, The species, and the Environment. The net result was the change of species as a function of the changing environment. If we apply this to MoQ, we can present the species as static quality, and the environment as dynamic quality. This is of course a loose analogy, but useful. Furthering the analogy, we can say that static quality is selected through dynamic quality. While species cannot be truly considered as static, and dynamic quality cannot be claimed as an unchanging pressure, the analogy works. In this sense, evolution is a representation of the interaction between the static and the dynamic. Quality itself encompasses evolution (as it should) and is not subordinate to the "laws" of evolution. > > DQ/SQ: Is DQ in being indefinable unknowable? Emotions are indefinable and > "Love" is all embracing. Emotions DQ format SQ intellect for > intelligibility. All IMHO! [Mark] With this last statement you return to the subject matter of the thread as presented by Ham. Ham speaks clearly of attraction, which I fully support. One interpretation of Love could be such attraction. This would agree with Essentialism, and in fact I agree with you. Ham has refined this by presenting "love for", which makes more sense in this forum. As such the experience of love is Ham's attraction. To complete the analogy, Ham rightfully envisions an object of love which is located on the other side. While we disagree on how this is presented, I agree with him whole-heartedly (pun intended). I also agree with your inclusion of emotions in the DQ set and intellect in the SQ set. I am not sure if you agree with me who agrees with you. Cheers, Mark > > Joe > > > > > > > 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
