To: Rick
From:Roger
RE:The relationship of DQ to Chaos
RICK:
First, I must admit that the "sea/island analogy" I used in the post does
seem to imply the "objectivisation" you refer to, but I didn't mean it to
come out quite so... materialistic. It does come from Pirsig actually, from
the SODV paper pages 12/13--- " In this diagram you will notice that Dynamic
Quality is not shown in any block. It is in the background. This seems the
best way to represent it. It is not only outside the blocks, it pervades
them but it goes on where the blocks leave off. The blocks are organized in
the order of evolution, with each higher block more recent and more Dynamic
than the lower ones.
ROGER:
I like the "DQ pervades" analogy. It avoids objectifying experience.
RICK:
Meanwhile,the "chaos" that Pirsig refers to in Lila--- (i.e. the supremecy of
Inorganic over Chaotic) appears nowhere at all. I found this a bit
confusing. You suggest Pirsig rejects this ultimately view but I can't find
that.
ROGER:
Well let me clarify or correct what I said then.... I would agree with your
statement that the laws of nature are explained in the MOQ as inorganic
pattern triumphing over chaos. My concern is with your equating of DQ with
chaos. I believe pattern and chaos are both descriptions derived from
experience or reality. I was able to find where he says that "To cling to DQ
alone apart from any static patterns is to cling to chaos." (ch 9) But I
couldn't find any other references of the two together. ( I do vaguely
remember another pertinent quote, anyone able to help???) I do not believe
it is correct from the quote to equate the two literally though. Clinging to
DQ leads to chaos. And DQ is prior to patterning or intellectual
understanding, but it is not CHAOS.
RICK:
Hmmm..."Sq and the four levels are high quality, logically consistent
interpretations of DQ." Logically consistent interpretations...??? Sounds
like Intellectual patterns, no? Is this meant to say that all 4 levels are
"merely" intellectual patterns--- Inorganic Patterns are really Intellectual
Patterns, Bio patterns are Intellectual patterns, Socio patterns are
Intellectual patterns and Intellectual patterns are Intellectual patterns???
This seems confusing and extremely problematic (not to mention slightly
solipsistic)
ROGER:
Pirsig says exactly this on pages 114 and 115 of the paperback. He defines
the MOQ as 'simply intellectual patterns for describing reality.' Pirsig
reinforces this theme on pages 137 and 138, and in Chapter 29.
This topic is the litmus test for me of what I call objectifization. Unless
you see the difference between reality and descriptions of reality, you will
continue to confuse the two. See page 118 to read one of Pirsig's many
warnings on this. I must say that about half the members of this
forum...some of them very long term members..... share your view. The common
mistake is to replace SOM's subjects and objects with the MOQ's patterns of
value without remembering the rest of chapter 8. Please don't just take my
word for it thoough, read it again and see for yourself. The MOQ is "a better
set of coordinates to interpret the world', it is not reality itself.
As for the old solipsistic charge, that completely ignores that in the MOQ
reality is experiential. Reality is not a set of intellectual patterns, it
is the universal starting place of experience. (p118).
So in summary, of course a set of metaphysical statements about the levels
are intellectual patterns. What else can they be to those that do not
confuse the patterns with the experience? But I will agree the levels are
very high quality interpretations of experience. And they are empirical.
RICK:
I hate refering to "Chaos" as a "level" it isn't static (the Quantonics
site's representation of the MoQseems to make this mistake--- but even in
their representation, like Pirsig's, this "Chaos" is identified w/DQ and
seems to sit below the inorganic.---- So what is it? Am I still thinking
too "objectivist"?
ROGER:
For me you are. Again though, you will find plenty of company on your views
in the forum. I myself shared your view for the first four or five years I
studied Lila. Reading William James and Zen philosophers allowed me to
finally toss off my intellectual attachment to objective, patterned reality.
Then when I reread Lila it was amazing. I found I had screened out or
misunderstood myriads of direct quotes where Pirsig warns against objective
reality.
Do me a favor..... For a week try to re-evaluate all your views on the MOQ in
this new paradigm. See how it can clarify parts of the metaphysics that were
previously disjointed. I have looked at it both ways, and found one view is
more consistent with the book, and of higher quality. Let me know your take
on the issue and let me know how I can improve my "constructs of reality"
Rog
PS -- Read the definition of 'Pattern' that I quoted in my post today to
Jonathan. The very term is intellectual and non-objective.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
