On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 11:39 AM, Arlo Bensinger <[email protected]> wrote:
> [Arlo] > I know the concept of "infinite regress" is disturbing to some, I think > there is a strong psychological impulse to want those waves to reach a > shore, but I personally think there is a great beauty in this metaphor. Once > you ask "what is the eye that sees me?" (as Platt used to ask), you must > then answer "what is the eye that sees that first eye?" and so on and so > on... Its arbitrary, really, where you want to 'stop' the process. I think > this was a brilliant insight in Hofstadter's "I am a Strange Loop". I think > its also revealed (as Hofstadter points out) in works such as Magritte's > "The False Mirror". "All this is just an analogy", as Pirsig wrote, and in > the spirit of Hostadter could be restated "All this is just an analogy > (including this sentence (and this one(and this one)...)...)". Anyways, I > digress. [Mark] It would seem to me that the concept of infinite regress disappears immediately within MoQ, since all is perceived through Quality. In fact, this infinite regress stops as soon as one realizes the eye seeing the eye that sees. It is like a mirror. When we look at ourselves looking at ourselves, do we get stuck in infinite regress? Well, most people don't. It is the recursive nature of language and logic which creates such endless circles. The eye seeing the eye that sees closes the loop and there is no regressive tendency. If one sees the world as maps within maps then one gets so far from reality that it can be destructive. Of course it takes that regressive notion to understand how to get out of it. Who created the creator? Well, now I am creating nonsense. > > [Mark] > So perhaps it can be said that any creation as such can be evaluated on its > usefulness. > > [Arlo] > This is an interesting statement because it says, to me, "a creation can be > evaluated on its value". What else can something be evaluated on? :-) Sadly, > we have to use the language we have, and so its difficult to say things that > from a MOQ-perspective aren't tautological or redundant. > > But yes, I'd say that once you are aware that you are evaluating 'maps', > rather than making Absolute judgements about which map is the One True Map, > then I think 'usefulness' is precisely the measure that defines this. This > is why I'm not really trying to map Nietzsche onto Pirsig, or do anything > that would twist one map to conform to the other, but looking at points > where there are similarities and also where one topology may be help > illuminate the other. [Mark] Yes, exactly. The trick is trying to show someone how it is not "the" map, but "our" map that is important. It is the rhetoric provided to describe the map. The finger can point at anything at all, but it is still a finger pointing. Describing a description is what I am trying to do now. Oh, oh, maybe now I need to describe the description that describes the description. Help! I am falling! > > > [Arlo] > I like the term 'symbiotic' here. Keep me posted on your ideas as they > develop. OK, it is better than the picture of a snake eating its tail, that is so pervading in many mystical cultures. > > [Mark] > DQ changes sq, and sq provides direction to DQ. > > [Arlo] > Right, and I think this is the foundational dialectic that prevents the MOQ > from being a 'deterministic' philosophy. Responses to DQ alter the > trajectory, create new possibilities and new options that would otherwise > not appear. I think Nietzsche would agree that the structure of Apollonian > form impacts the windows through which the Dionysian penetrates. Thus, > although he was very convinced, for example, Beethoven's Ninth Symphony was > evidence of a Apollonian/Dionysian convergence, I think he'd be the first to > admit that dropped into the middle of an aboriginal culture it would not > have the same power (if it had any power at all). And to which I'd add that > aboriginal 'art' loses its power when viewed from other cultures as well. It seems to me that this notion of determinism that I come across is a misrepresentation of MoQ. I suppose this comes from the idea that Quality is somehow separate from us, and impacts us somewhere in places that are not us, or that at least we can have no control over. If I assume that we are Quality in action, and that Quality is free, then this concept of determinism seems to go up in a puff of smoke. I like your Beethoven example. I tried playing some good Rock and Roll for my Dad when I was growing up, but he just told me to shut it off. Our static judgements need something to judge to be judgements. By judging, that "something" becomes "something else", and we then judge what it has become. How do we separate our judging from that being judged? Perhaps this is another endless regress (heh, heh). I know that Quantum Physicists have a big problem with creating the reality that we observe, but in MoQ, this is not a problem at all, for our judgement of Quality is Quality (and on and on and on). > > In short, its not just about glorifying the Dionysian, but in understanding > that Apollonian form has a significant, if not equal, role in the 'art' > outcome. And I think this plays directly into Pirsig's lamentation of how > structures in the West have been built in such a way as to impede, if not > outright block, the Dionysian impulse. Its not about tearing structures down > so much as its about rebuilding them in better ways. The way I see it, is that they are two sides of a coin. One cannot exist without the other. Even glorifying the Dionysian could perhaps be seen as an Apollonian intrusion. Well, maybe I have gone too far there. I'll stick with the Classical and Romantic, it is much simpler for me to explain. > My search for a good way to represent the manner in which DQ and sq coexist is still an ongoing project. As Pirsig states, once a definition is given to such a thing, then people will mistake the definition for what it is representing. Knocking a student on the head with a stick seems to be a good way to get out of this hypnosis. But, I do not think I would have too many "students" in this day and age if I used that Zen technique. So, on to some more rhetoric to provide astonishment. Mark > > > > 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
