Mark
It's my understanding that Lila alludes to DQ but does not define it as
this is not possible.
SQ is how we make sense of our experience but cannot contain or describe
DQ so any discussion of DQ is not DQ - it is ideas about DQ. There is a
big difference.
So in an exchange of ideas DQ must always be left out.
I'm not implying that DQ is left out of the DQ/SQ split or of Quality or
that we can't talk about it - just that it cannot be captured or defined
within SQ.
Horse
On 10/03/2012 17:57, 118 wrote:
Hi Horse,
What do you mean by DQ is left out? Left out of what? Doesn't Lila
describe DQ? I see no reason not to include it in the description of
Quality. Are you suggesting that the DQ/sq split is irrelevant? Of
course DQ IS NOT what we present, but leaving out any mention of it
seems to be contrary to MoQ, in my opinion.
Certainly static patterns can be an objectification of our preferences
(like metal filings are an objectification of a magnetic field, but
does not "understanding" MoQ need to bring in DQ to enable such a
thing? If you prefer not to understand these things, then you would
not present DQ as being "left out". For that implies an understanding
on your part of DQ, in my opinion. Doesn't the moral presentation
within MoQ bring forth understanding? Is DQ left out of that? What
for you encompasses reasoning, or that which lies within the
intellectual level? The intellectual level is more than sq SOM since
it also includes a dynamic component, in my opinion. But I am happy
to listen to arguments to the contrary, such as DQ being "left out" of
the process.
Please explain so that I can understand what you are suggesting.
Thanks,
Mark
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 4:07 AM, Horse<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi David
I don't often send through 'me too' posts but I thought I should do so on
this one.
You get to the core of the MoQ in a simple and easy to understand way.
(Static) Patterns (of value) are the means by which we make sense of (order)
our experience and, consequently, how we reason.
Only DQ is left out!
Thank you
Horse
On 10/03/2012 00:58, David Harding wrote:
Hi Mark,
That's the core of our disagreement. The fact that you do not see the
beauty in Pirsig's choice of the word 'patterns' and think that his
selection of the word is rather arbitrary and that "he could have used other
terms".
From the perspective of the MOQ the correct answer is the best one.
Wouldn't you agree? I think so... So I think an explanation of the MOQ which
has beauty in Pirsig's use of the word 'patterns' is better than one in
which his selection of this word is arbitrary. A beautiful idea has harmony
with our experience and the MOQ is the most harmonious explanation of our
general experience ever created. It's for this reason that I don't think
that the choice of the term 'patterns' is as arbitrary as you imply.
The reason there is beauty in the term 'patterns' is because that is how
our intellect works. It inductively recognises patterns and designates these
patterns names. Pirsig has said as much in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle
Maintenance:
"This morning I talked about hierarchies of thought...the system. Now I
want to talk about methods of finding one's way through these
hierarchies...logic.
Two kinds of logic are used, inductive and deductive. Inductive inferences
start with observations of the machine and arrive at general conclusions.
For example, if the cycle goes over a bump and the engine misfires, and then
goes over another bump and the engine misfires, and then goes over another
bump and the engine misfires, and then goes over a long smooth stretch of
road and there is no misfiring, and then goes over a fourth bump and the
engine misfires again, one can logically conclude that the misfiring is
caused by the bumps. That is induction: reasoning from particular
experiences to general truths."
Our minds inductively create hierarchies of thought through this logical
detection of patterns. That's it. That's all there is to it.
If, on the other hand, we use these patterns we have created to deduce
something not directly experienced, then that is a deductive inference...
"Deductive inferences do the reverse. They start with general knowledge
and predict a specific observation. For example, if, from reading the
hierarchy of facts about the machine, the mechanic knows the horn of the
cycle is powered exclusively by electricity from the battery, then he can
logically infer that if the battery is dead the horn will not work. That is
deduction."
You might now be saying.. "but then if Pirsig's choice of the term
'patterns' has been selected because of its intellectual component, why do
we call them inorganic, biological and social 'patterns'? "
The reason we call them this is because they are only ever recognised as
patterns *because* of our intellect. They only exist *because* of our
intellect. The recognition of this fact is built in right there in their
name.
-David.
On Saturday, 10 March 2012 at 1:43 AM, 118 wrote:
Hi David,
My guess is that it fit within the rhetoric of the chapter. I am sure he
could have used other terms. The point is that it is just a word. "Things"
do not really exist as patterns, that is a word he chose at the time. If one
wants to say that patterns is the most enlightening term to use for
presentation it should be explained. To me it sounds like mathematical
formula. As such it leaves a lot out.
Encapsulation of the understanding of a book to a single word seems (to
me) to dismiss the message.
Cheers, and thanks for the question.
Sent laboriously from an iPhone,
Mark
On Mar 9, 2012, at 6:04 AM, David Harding<[email protected]
(mailto:[email protected])> wrote:
Hi Mark,
As an aside to our ongoing conversation. I'd like to have another..
Why do you think things are called 'patterns' in the MOQ?
The values part is pretty self explanatory.
But why did Pirsig use the term patterns?
-David.
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
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
--
"Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production
deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid."
— Frank Zappa
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
--
"Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production deadlines
or dates by which bills must be paid."
— Frank Zappa
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
