Dan,
On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 9:17 PM, Dan Glover <[email protected]> wrote: > John, > > On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 1:49 PM, John Carl <[email protected]> wrote: > > I have another problem with the SOP of MOQ interpretation. I don't > > agree that the levels are discrete. > > Dan: > I would say the levels are what the MOQ say they are. They are a > system for organizing reality, not reality itself. The levels do not > exist independently out there in the universe. That said, let's > examine your argument... > > >JC: > > > > dis·crete > > /dɪˈskrit/ > > 1. > > apart or detached from others; separate; distinct: six discrete parts. > > 2. > > consisting of or characterized by distinct or individual parts; > discontinuous. > > 3. > > Mathematics . > > a. > > (of a topology or topological space) having the property that every > > subset is an open set. > > b. > > defined only for an isolated set of points: a discrete variable. > > c. > > using only arithmetic and algebra; not involving calculus: discrete > methods. > > Origin: > > 1350–1400; Middle English < Latin discrētus separated; see discreet > > > > > > The reason this seems so ridiculous to me is that there is nothing so > > continuous as experience - > > Dan: > That's why Dynamic Quality and experience become synonymous in the > MOQ. Experience isn't made up of static quality patterns... those come > later. So you are talking about two different ideas here that are so > far apart that apples and oranges doesn't come close to covering it. > > Jc: If DQ and Experience are truly synonomous, then one of those terms is redundant. Anyway, isn't it the *immediate* or pre-conceptual experience for which the claim is made? Most of experience is conceptual, in fact an idealist would claim all of it is. > > JC: > > life, the universe and everything. Life > > without inorganic parts, would be nothing, societies without > > biological beings would be empty and ideas that no society accepts are > > unheard of. Every single level contains the levels below it. in > > fact, the level below is defined only by what it is not! That qhixh > > ia higher. Evolution doesn't take us out of the morass of nature. > > Nature is evolution and raises us to higher purpose that includes all > > lower patterns. The only way to define the lower is by the > > not-upper. Inorgania does not contain life and life does not > > contain society and society does not possess intellect. > > Dan: > "In this plain of understanding static patterns of value are divided > into four systems: inorganic patterns, biological patterns, social > patterns and intellectual patterns. They are exhaustive. That's all > there are. If you construct an encyclopedia of four topics-Inorganic, > Biological, Social and Intellectual-nothing is left out. No "thing," > that is. Only Dynamic Quality, which cannot be described in any > encyclopedia, is absent. > > "But although the four systems are exhaustive they are not exclusive. > They all operate at the same time and in ways that are almost > independent of each other. > > Jc: Yes, that's the passage with which I'm taking issue. I am saying that the higher levels are dependent upon the continuous action of the lower. Lila: "This classification of patterns is not very original, but the > Metaphysics of Quality allows an assertion about them that is unusual. > It says they are not continuous. They are discrete. They have very > little to do with one another. Although each higher level is built on > a lower one it is not an extension of that lower level. Quite the > contrary. The higher level can often be seen to be in opposition to > the lower level, dominating it, controlling it where possible for its > own purposes." [Lila] > > > Dan comments: > I am not sure what your argument is here... the MOQ plainly states > each level is built upon the lower one. The higher levels can be seen > as in opposition to the lower levels... what they are not, in other > words. You seem to have worked out the discrete nature of the levels > for yourself here. > > > Jc: I am working out the dependencies of the levels - the exact opposite of their discretion. I think I understand what Pirsig was aiming at - the fact that when a jump in levels occurs, entire new harmonies and purposes occur. But to my thinking it's like a symphony that creating new rhythms out of the old, still include the old while developing into more. Intellectual patterns depend upon a biological brain. Intellect cannot be shown to exist outside of a biological brain, unless you believe in angels and ghosts. >JC: > > Pirsig's philosophy isn't about system-building, in the first place. > > Pirsig's philosophy is about obtaining lost value. When you have a > > realization of good, you don't have to ask experts or authority > > anymore, what is good. Neither do you need to be a reactionary and > > reject authority, just because it's not able to rule in every > > individual life. You take what is good and you share it again. > > That's the way good ideas spread. > > > > Pirsig's teachings got me there. Now the question is, why should I be > > captured again, by worshipping Pirsig's teachings? Was he not a > > single man in his single experience and speaking of the problems he > > faced in the high country of the mind? Other people don't start from > > the same place as him. For the important reason that time marches on > > and places change. > > > > Mountains are wide at the bottom. Is Pirsig about learning one > > route, and one route only? Do I have to move to Montana and get > > rubbed out in Chicago? Or is Pirsig about showing a way to find your > > own path? Because I'd always assumed it was the latter, and if that's > > wrong. If what we are supposed to take from his work, is memorizing > > words and parroting them exactly, then I guess I've really been wrong > > about ZAMM and Lila. Arlo and dmb and Ant are right, I'm just stupid > > and don't understand the MoQ, after all. > > Dan: > The only way I have ever learned anything is by being wrong. Ain't > nothing wrong with being wrong. That, and I wear a size 14W boot. You > know what they say... big feet, big boots! > > Jc: Big boots are certainly helpful in wading through the BS. I got rather small feet. Maybe that's why I stumble over it so much. > >JC: > > Here I thought it was about Quality. > > Dan: > Metaphysics, that is... black gold, Texas tea... oh wait... I got my > metaphors mixed up again. Sorry. > > Give me the gold refined in the fire, and eye-salve for my eyes that I might see. Thanks Dan, John 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
