Re: MD Lila's Child

From: SQUONKSTAIL@aol.com
Date: Tue Aug 05 2003 - 20:58:07 BST

  • Next message: Platt Holden: "Re: MD novel/computer heirarchy"

    Hi Squonk,

    I'm entirely sympathetic to your aesthetic emphasis of the MOQ. I think
    you're on to something very important, but find your explanations hard
    to follow. For example:

    > There are no subjects and objects in the MoQ.
    > Therefore, there cannot be any objectivity, or subjectivity either.

    There are plenty of subjects and objects in the MOQ. Pirsig admits as
    much. One can barely utter a sentence without employing subjects and
    objects. Our language is fundamentally based on the S/O split. I don't
    think denying this is helpful in promoting understanding of the MOQ.

    squonk: Hello Platt, If you have read my review of Matt's last essay you will
    have seen that i accept what you are saying.
    I feel we can still use old words in new contexts? If one reads Spinoza along
    side Descartes, for example, it can be a little unnerving to discover that
    Spinoza is using a different description of 'attribute' than Descartes. For
    Spinoza, an attribute inheres in one being - God or nature. For Descartes,
    attributes are of Mind or Matter, or God.
    Spinoza and Plotinus are a little like the MoQ in this regard, as both
    Spinoza and Plotinus view the One as being that which is real. Everything else is an
    aspect of the One and are therefore in a continuum.
    As you know, and as i admire you i will not insult you by repeating that the
    One of Pirsig has two attributes - static and Dynamic. Therefore, subjects and
    objects in the MoQ must be talked about in new ways, that of Dynamic and
    static. All patterns are in the continuum; subjects and objects are linked.

    > So, a search for objectivity is futile, and supposing subjective quality
    > presupposes a subject.

    Objectivity, as Steve has eloquently pointed out, is based on
    measurement. Far from being futile, measurement (objectivity) is the
    basis of science which has brought untold benefits to mankind.

    squonk: Whatever unit you ever take must be relative to something else. In
    his history of Western philosophy, Bertrand Russell reminds us that this was
    known at the birth of geometry. Therefore, it must be asserted that measurement
    is an invention, and what is more, it is an invention of the human intellect.
    One could argue that inventions of the Human intellect are subjective, but as
    there are no subjects and objects in the MoQ, we must say they are intellectual
    patterns of value instead.
    I agree measurement is beneficial, but i would say measurement is an art. If
    you wish to measure rotation, you use another tool - radians for example
    (degrees per second).

    > The MoQ says experience is primary, and it is of static quality.

    I beg to differ. The MOQ says experience is primary and is synonymous
    with Quality. Quality is then cut into Dynamic and static. Thus, pure
    experience is both Dynamic and static simultaneously.

    squonk: I agree with you Platt. Being you, i felt it was taken as read.

    > Therefore, the most dynamic patterns will likely dominate static
    > experience.

    This doesn't follow from your previous assertion.

    squonk: I can see that. And this is frustrating for me, because i want to
    introduce an idea i have been thinking about, but really it should be presented
    in an essay i have just about ready. An approach may lie in the relationship
    between DQ and SQ, and this relationship is an aesthetic one.
    I know you value aesthetics and beauty, in common with myself.

    > As intellectual patterns are empirically verifiable as the
    > most dynamic, (thus providing evidence for a hierarchy of evolutionary
    > related patterns) it is intellectually patterned experience that a
    > Metaphysics is concerned with.

    Nor does this follow. At least, I can't make sense of it.

    squonk: More frustration. But i have a feeling you would agree that static
    inorganic patterns are evolving far more slowly, (less dynamically) than static
    intellectual patterns? That's all i am saying really.

    part II follows...

    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 : Tue Aug 05 2003 - 21:30:54 BST