Hi Ian --
On Wednesday, 2/27, at 4:05 AM, Ian Andersson wrote:
The main difference is if there are processes that are reproduced or bound
in some kind of loop. Hydrogen atoms for
example are vere stable processes while what we know about the life of
this planet or some economic policies
doesn't seem to be very stable. Hydrogen is Hydrogen, if the structure of
the actual lump of energy is changed
then it will be called something else than Hydrogen.
The four levels of static quality, which is one of RMP's most important
contribution to human knowledge,
shows the difference between levels of stable processes that have about the
same conditions, and processes
that are dependent on others that are not dependent on the first. The
biologic processes that are dependent
on the inorganic matter while inorganic processes doesn't bother about
biology at all for example.
An intellectual thought can be hold by any human.
Static quality is how something can be stable, repeated and reproduced,
while dynamic is how just anything
stable can change into just anything else. That is why it is impossible to
exactly define dynamic quality,
just because static patterns are some, but not the complete series of,
possible examples of what DQ can do for you.
You are much too materialistic for a philosopher, Ian.
Static is not a synonym for "stable", nor is the stability of a process what
I was addressing. Even a hydrogen atom has a single negatively charged
electron spinning around its positively charged proton, not to mention
quarks and other subatomic particles that are dynamically involved in the
process. Existence itself -- every last bit of it (to quote a familiar
author) -- is the appearance of matter and energy in a constant state of
flux. The fact that an object is defined as a "stable event" does not
exclude it from existential process.
The only "static" factors in human experience are abstractly rationalized
precepts, by which I mean formulations, principles, axioms, mathematical
equations, lingual systems, and the like. Everything in our relational
world properly qualifies as "dynamic" with respect to everything else. And
that includes those problematic "patterns" which make Quality (Value)
realizable in relative terms. In fact, it is our ability to differentiate
Value that actualizes experiential reality.
All of the above hinges on a Primary Source and a "value-sensible agent"
which is the cognizant individual. Value is primary to the experience of a
differentiated world. But without a metaphysical Source there can be no
such agent, hence no value realization. So, while Pirsig is right that
Quality (Value) is primary to experience, he hides (obscures?) the Source in
a void of "indefinability". This, for me, is the critical flaw in his
Metaphysics of Quality. It's unfortunate that "static" and "dynamic" are by
now thoroughly ingrained in his ontology, for the orientation of these terms
is an obstacle to those of a mystical persuasion (such as Marsha), as well
as others here who hold to a more conventional epistemology.
Thanks for the elucidation, Ian. I hope this more clearly explains what I
was getting at in yesterday's message.
Essentially yours,
Ham
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
