Donny,
It seems that the rock on which we are foundering is our different
interpretations of Dynamic Quality.
Donny writes:
But you're not talking about DQ. Pirsig's DQ is the undefinable,
"pre-intellectual" (that is: pre-S-O division) aesthetic continuem. It is
not a concept... In a literal sense it is nothing -- NO-thing -- a
non-concept.
Clark writes ;
(Everyone jumps on the "undefinable" word in Pirsig's definition of DQ.
By undefinable he simply means that the DQ concepts that are being enabled
have not entered out static consciousness yet. The process of DQ and SQ are
not indefinable).
I agree with pirsig's definition of DQ but I interpret it differently
than you do. As I see Dynamic Quality it is simply our unrealized mindset
as it is conditioned by all of the influences that are currently being
generated by the state of the physical universe plus all of the influences
that are currently being generated by the state of our static understanding
of our position in the universe, including the ideas and prejudices that
our current understanding has generated.
DQ then is the non-cognizant state of readiness to accept new information
from our field of awareness which has been generated by the current state
of our understanding of our position in the universe. including the
totality of our static quality latchings.
Before sentience, Dynamic Quality is simply the current condition of the
ongoing state of the universe which allows further latchings to occur.
This interpretation seems to me to be in accordance with Pirsig's
definition of Quality.
Further, I can see no requirement for a mystical interpretation of DQ in
this view. I dislike the idea of a universe based on mysticism because I
prefer to live in a universe over which the possibility exists that I might
possibly have some control, however slight, but mainly over which i might
have some predictive power. Mysticism throws this out the window and we are
just rattling around in a completely unpredictable universe. Such a
situation demands that we invoke a God with whom we can plead for favors
and possible manipulation of the physical forces.
Donny writes:
Now, the definition of "mysticism" in philosophy (get
this, BODVAR!) is that the root source and ultimate ground of reality is
beyond definition, catagory, intelectual (S-O) understanding. BY
DEFINITION the MOQ is a mysticism! Now you can talk about your force for
greater info but that's not DQ; you're just appropreating Pirsig's term.
Clark writes:
As we can now see, the philosophical definition of mysticism does not
apply to DQ.
A lucky thing too because if it did we would be stuck in a universe over
which we did not have even predictive power and would be completely
dependent the unpredictable actions of some sort of loose cannon without
recourse except for begging.
Donny writes:
Something is hydrogen or helium by NOT being something else (like
>oxygen, zinc or just empty space). Hydrogen as-opposed to
>not-hydrogen. That's still relativly defined -- defined relative to
>something. Everything w/in the world of "daylight consciousness" and
>aristotilian logic (A is not not-A) exists relativily
Clark writes:
Does this mean that if we want to identify hydrogen then we have to
compare it to everything that exists is the universe to be sure we do not
have another match.
Seriously, this is a perfect example of SO thinking and one with which I
agree.
In my view SO thinking is necessary for an understanding of our position
in the universe and does not violate Pirsig's ideas.
In my view, SO thinking is not incompatible with Dynamic Quality. In
fact, if we discard Mysticism then SO thinking is a necessary adjunct to
the MOQ. I think that this is the case.
Donny writes:
Do you see what you're doing here?
'First there is the sand (universe) -- the obhect that REALLY IS
out there whether we know of it or not. Then there is the man and beach,
(sentience and universe) and THEN DQ and sq become a RELATIONSHIP between
them.' (That's paraphrasing, but am I acurate?)
That's -- I believe -- what pirsig called "SOM," is it not? You
have first the man (subject) and beach (object) and then quality becomes a
relationship between the two -- secondary.
For RMP, quality is primary. The man (sentience) and the sand
(universe) arise out of Absolute Quality. They are two different
types of "static latchings," or what I prefer to call "moral rhythms."
This is the big paradigm shift from SOM to MOQ.
Clark writes:
Either I have failed to make myself clear or you have misinterpreted what
I said.
The beach represents the universe which was brought into being by Dynamic
Quality. Quality came into existence at the beginning and is responsible
for the physical organization of the universe. I am not prepared to say why
the organization of the physical universe fell out as it did but our
current understanding indicates that it did originate in this way. Once we
accept this idea then everything that has happened since can be logically
reconstructed. The universe originated as an object under the influence of
DQ. As the universe matured and became more complex it acquired many of the
attributes of a living system. The idea that the universe is indeed a
living system is beginning to attract more adherents. The idea has been
advanced that the prebiotic molecules originated in space (research
supports this) and then could have been dusted throughout the universe.
Life then arose in the biosphere and, in due course, sentience
Yes, I do see what I am doing there. the trouble is that you are not
interpreting it correctly. My view of the universe and the human situation
is that it is primarily a SO system. Notice that I did not say SOM which is
something else altogether.
In my view the universe is a subject -object universe which I do not
regard as being incompatible with Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality. If we
discard the SO view then we have to crank the MOQ into mysticism which I am
absolutely opposed to. As I said before, I do not wish to rattle around in
a mystical universe over which I have no understanding or even the
possibility of understanding. A Subject-Object view does not preclude the
MOQ.
Apropos of nothing, your thinkers stretching back through the years were
not playing with a full deck because they did not have the benefit of the
still limited understanding which science has given us. I think that any
attempt to construct a coherent picture of our situation in the universe
must be based on the reasonably firm knowledge that we have amassed through
the years. Still lots of room to grow.
I think that my view of the MOQ is compatible with Pirsig's view and I
agree that the universe is Quality, Morality, Value based but I do not
think that this demands a mystical approach.
Again, I do not wish to turn my intellectual freedom over to an
unpredictable mystical entity.
I don't know whether I have replied to all of your criticisms or not but
I am getting tired and my clarity of thought is degrading. Hit me again
with anything I have not answered. Ken Clark
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:43 BST