From: SQUONKSTAIL@aol.com
Date: Thu May 15 2003 - 21:55:55 BST
Hello Paul, (have to cut posts down to size so they get through!)
Hi Squonk
Are you saying that reading ZMM hinders understanding
of the MoQ? That's an interesting position I haven't
heard anyone else take so far, but I'm new to the
forum. Have others agreed or would others agree?
sq: The term, 'Quality event' has gained massive prominence in MoQ circles.
That term was never used by Pirsig, but does convey the flavour of the SoM
breakdown in ZMM. As far as i have been able to learn, the MoQ is Pirsig's
current view, and the one he would wish for to be promoted. In this regard,
ZMM is a step along the way, but may become a hinder.
The Metaphysics of Quality is a work of intellectual art. All universities
should teach the MoQ IMHO. It may be the case that in doing so, many students
find there is allot less to say and very much more to just sitting. They can
then forget about the MoQ. How fashionable would that be?!
> It is a matter of empirical observation that
> patterns sharing a relationship
> with our patterns may harmonise and become
> indistinct. In other words, our
> patterns and those of others in the same field may
> coalesce on many levels,
> at various times, and in many combinations.
This sounds good. Can you help me with an example /
analogy?
sq: Falling in love. The Zen master archer and bow harmonise in the moment
'it' fires the arrow. The Quality event may be seen as a coalescence in that
tension dissipates and ease reigns? Horse and rider? Art requires that we
loose ourselves. And if everything is art, then we become a barrier to its
execution? What do you think?
> However,
> further empirical
> observation reveals that such coalescence's may
> display severe boundaries
> which may be mistaken as a, 'View from within.'
My understanding of coalescence is that it is the
reverse of the Quality event analogy. In the MoQ,
primary unity, Quality, polarises into DQ and SQ. The
first static latch started that polarity (a
Complementary polarity). That coalescence happens is
evidence of that. Differentiation is a precursor to
unification? Now, I accept that differentiation may be
illusory, transient, arbitrary etc. thus we may not
see its illusory nature and ‘mistakenly’ take it as a
‘view from within’. Trying to accept that is perhaps
what sent Pirsig running back to the US from India.
sq: I don't view DQ and SQ as a polarity. Many things may be said of SQ but
nothing may be said of DQ. I don't have Lila to hand, but i seem to remember
that Quality is said there to have two aspects. Coalescence may be then seen
as a higher equilibrium shift towards DQ? In this sense, coalescence is a
potential value shift towards better states of static quality? Maybe a fall
if too much coalescence dissipates structure?
Carbon is a static pattern of energy capable of establishing organic life.
The coalescence of Hydrogen and Helium in its formation is a shift towards
higher Dynamic potential, surely? That is to say, that aspect of Quality we
call DQ has become more influential. Dissipate Hydrogen in a Dynamic
coalescence of more fundamental energy states and - bang!
The way I understood 'view from within', or at least
what I mean by 'everything has a view from within' is
simply that when Pirsig says that 'B values
precondition A' there is an implicit assumption that
'B' is afforded agency to 'value precondition A'. It
responds to Quality. And ‘B’ is anything we may
intellectually define.
sq: This is giving me problems. I think the problem lies in my thinking that
agency implies causation; Agents are causally related centres of action?
Causation is dispelled in the MoQ. Maybe agency is dispelled also? Modern
philosophical views present us with agents. But ancient Greek philosophy was
more about character. Arte. Excellence. That's seems closer to Quality?
> As such, the extension of,
> 'Personal experience' of
> Quality is not then merely an extension by analogy
> to DQ and the MoQ –
Understand that I’m not attacking the MoQ as ‘merely
an analogy’, it might be more appropriate to say that
I’m reducing the whole of the intellectual level to
‘extension by analogy’. SOM forgot that along the way.
sq: Need to think about this. Please remind me to get back to it if i forget
- which is very unlikely. It sounds good, but i have a have a flee at the
back of my head.
> Therefore, we may wish to say that the 'view from
> within,' as an extreme
> example of static patterning is morally preferable
> to move away from.
PIRSIG: ‘He crosses a lonesome valley, out of the
mythos, and emerges as if from a dream, seeing that
his whole consciousness, the mythos, has been a dream
and no one’s dream but his own, a dream he must now
sustain of his own efforts. Then, even ‘he’ disappears
and only the dream of himself remains with himself in
it.’ ZMM
sq: That is chilling.
Have I misunderstood? Be patient, Squonk, I have an
open mind.
Cheers
Paul
sq.: Can only say what i say, but certainly hope it helps? You inspire
patience, and i hope for your patience also Paul. Maybe you have a better way
of looking at all this than i do? That is a very exciting prospect. Thank
you.
All the best,
squonk
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 May 15 2003 - 21:57:05 BST