Hello, I suppose that saying Dynamic Quality is the source itself seems to define it (because it's tagged as a "source", as in being different from a "result" or "effect" or "product"), though it is acceptable to me to say that about DQ for purposes of practicality and less-remote understanding.
The intellectual static patterns are, I presume, the source of ego, although its purpose could be to facilitate social static patterns. I see the division of Quality into DQ and SQ as a division between finity and infinity, although owing to my computer scientificness I initially understood it as being a division parallel to information and computation (as DQ is the source of change, and SQ are patterns that "stay"). Akshay On 4/5/07, Dan Glover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hello everyone > > >From: "Hamilton Priday" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: [email protected] > >To: <[email protected]> > >Subject: Re: [MD] Art of Value > >Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 13:53:20 -0500 > > > >Greetings Akshay, and Hello Dan -- > > > >I've just had some off-line conversation with Case, who has expressed > >concern about my temporary absence due to a computer crash. (He's > proved > >to be a true gentleman after all!) Well, I'm still here, and I couldn't > >resist commenting on how pathetic is this idea of "leaving a legacy" as > the > >only hope of human transcendence. > > Hi Ham > > Good to see you back! Thank you for writing. > > > > >Akshay wrote: > > > There's an interesting Chinese proverb saying that the way a person > >lives > > > after death is by his legacy. The MoQ proves this so brilliantly. The > > > legacy is [what] a person's static patterns leave over other patterns > > > [and] > > > are the way those static patterns survive. Within, say, social > patterns, > > > I believe there are types of sub-patterns. There are patterns for > envy, > > > for affection, for flattering, et cetera. > >Ham: > >Surely a philosophy founded on value should suggest a plausible > connection > >of the individual to "the primary source of empirical reality." Are we > to > >assume that we "live after death in the 'static patterns' we leave to our > >survivors?" If this is our link to reality, of what value is it to us > OR > >our survivors? I see the deficiency of the MoQ as its failure to make > >this > >connection. We mortals are swept along in the wave of DQ, but in the end > >it > >is the wave -- not us -- that prevails. So where is the morality in this > >scenario, and what is the point of cognizant existence? Without that, > >"evolving to betterness" has no essential meaning. > > Dan: > I believe the MOQ (along with Buddhism) sees the "individual" as an empty > concept, literally a figure of speech. There is no connection to be made. > In > the MOQ, reality is experience. The MOQ subscribes to pure empiricism, but > there is no primary source as such. > > > > >[Akshay]: > > > By the way, the phrase "life after death" is a contradiction speaking > > > strictly logically. > > > >[Dan]: > > > Yes it is. I believe the question was: does consciousness survive the > > > death > > > of the brain. To the best of my knowledge, no one has yet identified > >what > > > consciousness is or where (or if) it is located in the brain. Does the > > > brain > > > act as a kind of antenna for consciousness? No one knows. If the brain > >is > > > indeed the seat of consciousness then when the brain dies, so does > > > consciousness. But if the brain acts as an antenna, then perhaps > > > consciousness survives in some fashion that we as living beings are > >unable > > > to comprehend. It is I suppose a mystery that only the dead share. > >Ham: > >My answer would be that the brain functions as the "instrument" of > >conscious > >awareness. What we experience is filtered by the brain and nervous > system > >so that our value-sensibility is limited to a differentiated perspective > of > >objective otherness. > > Dan: > > The MOQ would say that we use what it terms a static filter to sift > experience. The "Cleveland harbor effect" comes to mind. > > >Ham: > >This orients the finite creature to its finite world, > >a useful and necessary orientation for co-existence with Nature. It's > also > >what undiscerning people call "the real world." But to equate the > >cause-and-effect dynamics of finite objects with ultimate reality is > >intellectually naive. > >If Quality (or Value) is the source of finitude, as Pirsig seems to be > >saying, isn't it more plausible that this source is "uncreated" and > >absolute? > > Dan: > I don't recall Robert Pirsig saying Quality is the source of finitude. > Perhaps it might be said that static quality is finitude. Dynamic Quality > is > the source as long as it is remembered to keep it concept-free. > > >Ham: > >Isn't it more logical that the multiplistic "patterns of quality" > >that we are > >attuned to in existence ultimately relate to the Oneness of our Creator? > > Dan: > I think the MOQ would say the individual invents the ficticous self so in > a > sense we are our own creators. > > >Ham: > >I find it remarkable that the concept of a transcendent source is > >inimicable > >to postmodern philosophy. By rejecting a primary source beyond finitude, > >we > >prevent the kind of workable ontology that could make the MoQ a > meaningful > >breakthrough in contemporary Western Philosophy. > > Dan: > Dynamic Quality is beyond definition thus beyond finitude, if you will. I > think the MOQ would say it is important to stay away from concepts in the > sense that you seem to be suggesting, however. > > >Ham: > >I wonder if its author has ever considered the humanistic value of > leaving > >such a "legacy", instead of an unresolved enigma. > > Dan: > I cannot speak for Mr. Pirsig but writing 2 novels seems a fine legacy, > imo. > > Thank you for reading, > > Dan > > > 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
