From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Thu Aug 26 2004 - 15:45:57 BST
Mel:
> > -- Responses to Dynamic Quality are genetic
> [...sounds like an adaptive principal, a reformulation
> of a notion of evolution.]
Perhaps I should have said, "Responses to DQ are inborn." Recall Pirsig's
description of a baby responding to DQ.
> > -- Sometimes the bad can be good.
> [...the deep complexity of our interconnected universe
> means we cannot precisely comprehend effect.]
Excellent. The lesson of unintended consequences. (Promoters of an
intellect-controlled society, take note.)
> > -- Political correctness is a blight on intellect.
> [...PC is a blight on anything.]
Agree.
> > -- Science isn't the last word on anything.
> [...Science is a methodology to help guide us on
> a certain type of journey, its fruits are ephemeral.]
Yes, indeed.
> > -- Beauty is closely related to Dynamic Quality.
> [...or at least our perception of it.]
Do you distinguish between "perception of " and "experience of?" If so,
what's the difference?
> > -- To put philosophy in the service of any social organization is
> > immoral.
> [ Problematic Statement as it sits.
> If one attempts to improve a social organization to maximise DQ, then
> the philosophy becomes a social philosophy which is moral over what
> preceded. However, if the philosophy seeks to maximise SQ or promote
> social devouring of intellect, then the social philosophy
> is immoral and the act of so placing the philosophy is as well.]
The full quote from Pirsig:
"He wanted particularly- to see how much actual evidence there was for the
statement that James's whole purpose was to "unite science and religion."
That claim had turned him against James years ago, and he didn't like it
any better now. When you start out with an axe like that to grind, it's
almost guaranteed that you will conclude with something false. The
statement seemed more like some philosophological simplification written
by someone with a weak understanding of what philosophy is for. To put
philosophy in the service of any social organization or any dogma is
immoral. It's a lower form of evolution trying to devour a higher one."
(Lila, 29)
> > -- Helping others can cause misery.
> [...the deep complexity of our interconnected social network
> means we cannot precisely comprehend effect.]
Excellent. The lesson of unintended consequences. (Promoters of an
intellect-controlled society, take note.)
> > -- Money is a measure of social values.
> [...'A' measure, sometimes...]
Agree.
> > -- There is experience without subjects or objects.
> [...experience is, subject and object are merely organizational
> tools for abstracting experience and meaning.]
Debatable. "Experience" suggests a subjective "experiencer."
> > -- I think, therefore I pattern.
> [...awareness is markedly experienced here, now, of thinking.]
Unclear to me. Is "awareness" different than "experience?" Does awareness
create patterns?
> > -- The body dies; the body's beauty lives.
> [...the fruits of effect are independent of origins, after the fact.
> Mona Lisa endures beyond DaVinci. true. The memory of the
> dance endure beyond the curtain's fall. true. However, in an
> ultimately reflexive way, biologically, for me, the hard muscled
> young stud with the cheekbones didn't even survive into middle age,
> unless the mirror lies about the bald old fat guy who seems to have
> replaced his reflection ;-) ]
Your body may deteriorate, but the beauty of the young stud is eternal.
> > Anyone disagree with any of the above?
> [How about another: Is meaning real?]
The patterns we interpret as meaningful are real.
Thanks for your responses, Mel.
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Aug 26 2004 - 15:43:16 BST