Hi Joe,
Joe said:
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.
Matt:
If I understand you right, I'm not sure we differ that much. I'm not
sure exactly what the "independent access to morality is evolution,
levels in existence" is supposed to mean, but when you say "in an
evolutionary framework you have to start somewhere" (and I take
this to have been part of a statement of your position) and
commend this as "levels of existential reality embodying evolutionary
reality," I'm not sure I see the difference between that and my
suggestion that the glasses, which represents _all_ SQ, are our
starting, first-personal position.
I'm also unclear as to how you think I've denied real ontological
existence to DQ. (I'm especially unclear on how I've implied that
"metaphysics becomes a special logic of physics.") It isn't clear to
me what special sense you're giving to "ontological status" such that
when it _does_ appear in my analogical description, it doesn't count
(or what incompatibility I've incurred such that its appearance
violates some other part of my description). If one goes back to the
glasses, as our evolving (small) self, I think it makes easy sense to
see all sorts of cracks in the lenses (and more cracks, i.e. freedom,
as one climbs the chain of SQ), and this along the lines Pirsig laid
out in the SODV paper: "In this diagram you will notice that Dynamic
Quality is not shown in
any block. It is in the background. This seems
the best way to represent
it. It is not only outside the blocks, it
pervades them but it goes on where the blocks leave off."
I'm not going to suggest that there are not shortcomings to the
glasses analogy as I've outlined it. However, if we do not deny the
suggestion that we can take the glasses off, then I think we have
bigger, more SOM-like problems to deal with. And if we do deny
that we can take off the glasses (i.e., _all_ static patterns), then this
is at least one beginning attempt to try elaborate what that means.
Matt
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
