Hi Ron/Ashley Would it help if we think of all patterns as latching and restricting certain possibilities but at the same time enabling us or nature to reach new ones. For example, evolving 2 legs and sticking with them meant certain lost possibilities like the speed of running on 4 legs but at the same time enables us to reach out and attain from the realm of all possible body shapes the opportunity to develop hands. All actual forms both limit in some ways and extend in others what is possible for the evolving organism or society or intellect.
Same as Second Life, you can only make the buildings once the real estate is set up, even though there is nothing to restirct freedom in the second life universe, you still have to build out of nothing lower levels to create higher ones. All building is form and all form is a restriction upon the nothing where everything is possible. But without form you got nothing upon which to build your journey into the realm of anything is possible. Yet by building you get yourself all tied up. Hegel was well aware of this aspect of reality and Wagner's Wotan sings a couple of Operas about it. Of course when Aristotle talked about matter, he meant the malliable stuff than can take on any form, you could call it energy, and its uses are pretty unlimited you might say. DQ=energy? David M ----- Original Message ----- From: "Akshay Peshwe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 3:43 PM Subject: Re: [MD] Perception,evolution and the spirit > Ron, > > Thanks for sharing your thoughts on that -- it gave me good insights into > what Pirsig really means. > > But if DQ means freedom or detachment certain static patterns (in the > context of growth), then when you actually grow better, you're still > attached to some static pattern, which means that you never really get rid > of patterns completely, but only shift between which patterns you value. > > Perhaps the answer to that is the whole latching thing Pirsig talks about. > But how come all dynamic processes, those processes getting rid of their > previous patterns, end up better than before? Perhaps, the definition of > DQ > is itself growth (not considering all the "can't be defined" debate). > > By the way, don't you honestly think that Pirsig should write at least 5 > more books on his thoughts? > > -- Akshay > > > On 5/31/07, Ron Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> [Akshay] >> I don't think that ZMM is such an important book (so with the case of >> Lila) >> -- I just don't think Pirsig is the center of "his philosophy" of >> Quality. >> Whitehead is a brilliant philosopher who makes a much better attempt at >> writing philosophy than Pirsig. >> >> Initially, I didn't think of Quality or Value as in the sense of >> goodness or virtue -- I simply thought of it within the "scientific" >> framework (where it means characteristic), since characteristics are the >> "groundstuff" of the "world". When Pirsig talks about Quality, I >> interpret it Quality as preference. Organic molecules "chose" to evolve >> over millions of years to form animals. When I accept this fact, the >> famous "why did this happen?" >> question comes up which ultimately opens up the question of the purpose >> of the universe. Quality, I think, is just a sort of replacement for the >> word purpose, because why would something happen if it didn't have >> purpose; or in a more Pirsigian way, "it happened because it was >> Better". So, the Metaphysics of Quality to me is nothing greater than >> the four-fold classification of inorganic, biological, social and >> intellectual patterns with a mix of dynamic- and static- ness that >> maintains Order. This is parallel to the yin-yang principle. (Note how >> dynamicness is only a characteristic of a particular type of pattern) >> Pirsig would probably laugh this off, but maybe I need time to evolve to >> the truth of the MoQ (if it has truth at all); until then, that is my >> belief. On another note, I don't fully accept the "metaphysics" part of >> the MoQ, because I don't see it as "The Philosophy", it's only a good >> intellectual tool. >> >> >> >> >> >> [Ron] >> Ashkay, >> I tend to agree with most of the above, although I have not read >> whitehead yet. I've spent some >> Time collecting snipetts from various sources, some from Pirsig some >> from an article on american >> Pragmatists at www.robertpirsig.org all having to do with "betterness". >> >> "Good is conformity to an established pattern of fixed values and value >> objects. Lila 119 >> >> Regarding dynamic quality, its place in Pirsig's moral system is quite >> simple; it is the good. The more dynamic a static pattern is, the >> better.. .the more moral it is. In terms of static patterns the dynamic >> represents freedom from other static patterns (Pirsig, 1991, 307). >> Dewey's equivalent concept is that of adaptation to the environment. >> Life, for Dewey, is growth, not growth toward an end, (but growth as an >> end in itself. The ability to adapt (for Pirsig - the dynamic aspect of >> a static biological pattern) is that which enables growth (Thayer, 1973, >> 119), thus he says The process of growth, of improvement and progress >> rather than the static outcome and result, becomes the significant >> thing. Not health as an end fixed once for all, but the needed >> improvement in health - a continual process - is the end and good. The >> end is no longer a terminus or limit to be reached. It is the active >> process of transforming the existent situation. Not perfection as a >> final goal, but the ever-enduring process of perfecting, maturing, >> refining is the aim of living. Honesty, industry, temperance, justice, >> like health, wealth and learning, are not goods to be possessed as they >> would be if they expressed fixed ends to be attained. They are >> directions of change in the quality of experience. Growth itself is the >> only moral "end." (Dewey, 1920, in Thayer, 1973, 142) >> >> When Pirsig states that: All life is a migration of static patterns of >> quality toward Dynamic Quality. (Pirsig, 1991, 143) he means precisely >> what Dewey meant. Dynamic quality is an end, the end toward which life >> is heading, but, by definition, it is not a fixed, static end. It is >> change itself that life moves toward. Does Pirsig mean the same thing by >> 'dynamic quality' as Dewey's emphasis on 'growth'? If we now turn to >> Pirsig's concept of evolution we will see that he does, and that they >> agree entirely upon what is the only moral "end." In a metaphysics based >> on 'substance' change can only be explained as the effect of a prior >> cause. Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality replaces 'cause' with 'value' >> (Pirsig, 1991, 107) and so reverses the picture; >> >> For Pirsig the supreme good is actually dynamic quality, but, in terms >> of static patterns of quality - of things that exist in the world, he >> would agree entirely with Peirce; in terms of static patterns evolution >> is morality. However they disagree upon the nature of that process - >> Pirsig agrees with Dewey that there is no fixed end but only continuous >> change (or - growth). " >> >> >> >> >> 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/ > 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/
