Hello Ham, There is nothing mystical about me and I have no problem with the two aspects of Quality: Dynamic and static. I accept them fully as two sides of the same coin.
Marsha On Feb 27, 2013, at 2:15 PM, "Hamilton Priday" <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 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
