Bodvar Skutvik (skutvik@online.no)
Thu, 13 Nov 1997 03:51:53 +0100
Nov. 8 1997 Martin wrote (to Hugo):
>
> I guess there are several ways we can go about this. If you assume that
> DQ has a purpose, a goal that it wants to accomplish as it gives us
> values to evolve with, then it would have an essence.........(snip)
> (snip)......... This gives me the impression of having a goal in mind (and consequently an essence).
> Also, in Bodvar's essay, he mentions that DQ gives answers to
I will return to the creation vs evolution issue soon.
> creationists who don't believe we could have evolved by chance, but
> rather DQ leads evolution along somehow and 'meant' to create life. So
> again this gives me the impression that at least some of you believe DQ
> has intentions of its own (and an essence). If this is the case, then
> from the argument above, DQ would definitely be rejected by Sartre.
>
> Now if there is no goal or intent for DQ, but it is more of a blind
> watchmaker, spewing forth values here and there, and being completely
> random, then there wouldn't be such a problem. In that case, there
> wouldn't be an essence and no logical contradiction either. I think the
> latter case is better because it allows for an undeterministic world, a
> free future. However, the argument I gave in my other message was that
> DQ is the moment of awareness (actualization), but that we must also
> relegate all values which have not yet been perceived into the realm of
> DQ (potency). They return to DQ when they 'disappear' again (note
> Pirsig on death). I mean, otherwise what happens to them? Now I'm not
> sure if that's such a disproof anymore. I'll have to meditate on a
> while.
Hi Martin,
Regarding Sartre I agree with Hugo. Sartre was an academician
who did not address the metaphysics behind his phenomology.
That's a blind alley for finding a new direction.
Doug Renselle assured me that I needn't worry about TLS members
lapsing into SOM thinking, but there is still a need for old Bo's
alertness it seems. If the basics aren't straightened out, one is
confused by the first obstacle and defenceless when confronted
with a tough opponent. So - again - I'll offer some general
reflections to (try to) help your meditation :-), they will look
much like what I have said before, but it can't be overemphasized.
The thing that must be understood is the fundamental shift from
the SOM mind/matter platform to the MOQ dynamic-/static VALUE
platform. Unless this crucial step is realized, the Dynamic
Quality - for instance - will become some mumbo-jumbo entity:...
spewing forth values here and there... (well put)..landing oneself in
the very same quagmire as the Subject/Object metaphysics (SOM).
All right, what is the risk in not grasping the first basic shift?
Primarily that Mind is made equal to Dynamic Quality (DQ) into which
one start to look for purpose, essence and whatever we regard noble
and "spiritual". It must be realized that the Quality idea is an
EXPANSION!! Its Dynamic Quality (DQ) is a NEW concept to the Western
mind (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!), while its Static Quality has swallowed the
complete SOM. What was once the two primary realities are
now "spewed forth" as two static value levels: Inorganic and
Intellectual (the mind=intellect equation isn't quite good, but it'll
have to suffice until much greater misunderstandings are cleared
away).
The Dynamic part of the MOQ cannot be defined. Naturally, because it
is everything and nobody can step out of it to get a perspective.
However, the Metaphysics of Quality postulates a "weak dynamic
force"; a moral drift to escape limitations - whatever they are - for
the ever freer. Up to now this it has created the four moral levels
we recognize.
What is the advantage of shifting Mind/Matter from metaphysical
frontline to subdivisions of Static Quality? First, it removes the
quandaries connected with SOM's "mind". Second, it lifts the
paradoxes connected with SOM's "matter" (this is so well documented
in LILA [and IMHO in my essay] that it is not necessary to repeat.
How does this come about? Because the "patterns of value" model fits
experience so much better than the SOM model does. This is the only
criterion that counts. The naturalness of an all-encompassing
system like this is not relevant. All static patterns of thought
become "natural" after a few centuries.
I know that you, Martin, has a discussion going with an opponent
over at your own site, and I would have liked to present one
objection that this intelligent fellow has made to Pirsig calling the
present world-view Subject/Object Metaphysics.
Coming soon!
Bo.
-- post message - mailto:skwok@spark.net.hk unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:14 CEST