Hi Matt and All, I am enchanted by your description of DQ. I do differ from your description of DQ as a leading edge of experience. In an evolutionary framework you have to start somewhere. If I have no independent access to that leading edge except _through_ the glasses: one cannot go around the glasses....Why do the glasses have independent existence and reality in evolution does not? This denies real existence to DQ evolution. Metaphysics becomes a special logic of physics.
This denies ontological status to DQ. SQ loses the ontological status for evolution as merely holes in the glasses rather than as levels of existential reality embodying evolutionary reality. DQ instead of existing evolution becomes a mode in existential glasses, and the base for morality moves from evolution to law, the ten commandments! The independent access to morality is evolution, levels in existence. On 9/29/11 2:00 PM, "Matt Kundert" <[email protected]> wrote: > In this fuller version of the picture of static patterns and DQ, then, > what I would like to say is that the leading edge of experience (DQ) > is at the very edge of those acculturated glasses. However, we have > no independent access to that leading edge except _through_ the > glasses: one cannot go around the glasses (I am here disbarring > what Pirsig extrapolates from this metaphor in Lila: that it is possible > to take the glasses off--an even fuller version of this picture would > explain why).* Further, since I take the leading edge metaphor to be > an epistemological description of access, what it has access to is the > entire world, and so I feel willing and free to call this whole world by > Dave's appropriated Deweyan version of DQ: "infinitely complex > situational whole." (By "free" I mean that I do not see what in my > philosophical positioning would make such an agreement with Dewey > incompatible with my positioning.) We are always in contact with it, > but it is through the glasses. So what is a DQ experience on this > model? I would render it as a small hole in the glasses, a crack in > them that exposes the non-glassed world to the eye (there's a way, > I think, of extrapolating this metaphor carefully at this point to include > Emerson's "dilated eye" into it, though I shall pass over it). It is this > fragment of unglassed light in the midst of the rest of the glass (as > the eye takes in everything through the rims of the glasses) that > produces the "fresh seeing," a fresh seeing that is both static and > Dynamic interpenetrating. 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
