Hi all MoQers, Marsha, DMB
Yes water is static, ice is static but the change from one to another is
dynamic,
and in a sense difficult to analyse, think Zeno here. And of course this
refers
to SQ that we experience and SQ that we may wish to understand as analysable
as patterns that transcend experience, i.e. what we might want to call
objects.
I guess I see subject-object analysis as a second order form of analysis,
making sense of science and history over and above MOQ, where MOQ is
given the priority of making sense of our experience prior to any analysis
of reality in terms of subjects and objects that looks at evolution outside
of the
context of experience and in a sense subject-object analysis is theoretical
and
non-empirical as it postulates things as transcending experience, i.e. the
tree
in the forest can fall without anyone being there to experience it, and the
cosmos
evolved before human beings were around to experience it too. Is that
controversial,
how does Pirsig see subject-object analysis in the context of the MOQ would
you say?
Yes water and ice are concepts about physical states, but they are also
something
we experience. For me our metaphysics, derived from experience, should tie
in with
any theories we then go on to have about physical things or physical states
that
transcend our experience (ever tried adding Kant to your analysis DMB?).
DMB your points always seem to me to narrow my proposals and thereby exclude
them
whereas I am trying to broaden out the MOQ to make contact with wider terms
and approaches to show how the MOQ makes contact with them and helps to
illuminate them (I hope and feel). Maybe this reflects the difference
between
someone wanting to analyse down and someone wanting to connect ideas.
all the best
David M
-----Original Message-----
From: Jan-Anders Andersson
Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2013 9:48 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [MD] DQ/sq as WATER/ice
Hello All
Anyone who reads Lila carefully will notice that all through the story it is
very much about how things are related to how water is moving, but I don't
think RMP used water as an analogy for DQ.
J A
30 mar 2013 kl. 22:30 skrev david buchanan <[email protected]>:
Dan said to Marsha:
I guess I don't see where you're going with this. Water isn't distinct
from ice. Water IS ice. It is simply in a solid state rather than a
liquid. Inorganic patterns like water change structure according to the
ambient surroundings. Think iron: its melting point is much higher than
water. But it is still iron in either state.
On the other hand, static quality is distinct from Dynamic Quality by
definition. Static quality emerges from Dynamic Quality. To say 'the
fundamental nature of static quality is Dynamic Quality' seems confusing
rather than enlightening, in my opinion. Isn't the fundamental nature of
static quality its definition?
dmb says:
That's right. I think Lucy is use of the McGilchrist quote only undermines
the MOQ's central distinction. "Crazy" is such a strong word. Let's just
say she's conceptually promiscuous. It's so fuzzy you can't really make
anything out AND it invites an all-too-easy materialistic
misinterpretation of the static/Dynamic split, wherein metaphysical terms
are inappropriately used to describe physical states. You can see very
common error in David Morey's response to that quote...
David Morey said:
I love this quote. And it is when we experience changes like ice changing
to water then it becomes pretty clear what DQ is all about, and that water
is more dynamic than ice, and that is more static than water. ...
dmb says:
Water and ice are okay as analogies, maybe. But if static quality is
everything in the encyclopedia and both of them (water and ice) are
definable and both of them are included in the encyclopedia, then they're
both static in the MOQ's sense of the word. Pirsig says that Dynamic
Quality is the cutting of experience and static quality is conceptual,
ideas, abstractions, thoughts, the products of reflection, etc.. I don't
see how it could make any sense to say that water is the cutting edge of
experience or how it could make any sense to say that ice is a product of
reflection. I mean, this is a matter of confusing the metaphysics of
substance with the metaphysics of Quality.
"Water is distinct from ice, but in the ice cube it is present: not as a
fly might be trapped there, but _in the very ice_. And yet when the ice
cube is gone, the water remains. Although we see water as ice, we do so
not because it is there separately, to be seen from behind or apart from
the cube." (Iain McGilchrist, 'The MASTER and his EMISSARY: The Divided
Brain and the Making of the Western World', p. 452).
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
