Kilian:
And yet, mysticism isn't the whole thing. Anyone who affirms this
either wasn't paying attention to Pirsig's basic split of Quality in
LILA or finds it invalid. Fully half of reality is DQ -- the mystical
side of reality, the realm of inspiration, change, etc. The other half,
and no less important is SQ -- the side of physical reality, stability,
etc. Obviously, both are needed. They are two halves of the same
reality-coin.
Glove:
this is not a proper way of putting it really. in a sense there are two
halfs, but one (Dynamic Quality) subsumes, creates and discreates the other,
static quality. therefore they are not really halves at all in the sense you
talk about.
Kilian:
Having said that, I will cautiously contend that to approach this forum
on a purely mystical basis has potentially less value than to do so in a
rational, logical manner. This has to do with the "sharability" of a
mystical contention. It being something so personal and germane to the
individual, I feel that attempts to express it without adhering to the
confines of logic and language would be to give nothing to the squad as
a whole. Indeed, a tue mystic would say that such an event is doomed to
failure, because as soon as you use the static latch of language
whatever you're attempting to describe has been perverted.
Glove:
i am unsure what a "purely mystical basis" is, but hypthetically speaking i
would say there would be no need of even attending to a forum such as this
from a purely mystical basis. that doesnt mean the mystic basis is of lower
moral value however, quite the contrary. however, if Dynamic Quality is not
properly understood this is an easy misconception to make. i think there is
an assumption of opposing forces at work that only clears up when we use the
Metaphysics of Quality to examine it. which leads to your next question.
Kilian:
So could we maybe go back to discussing this month's PROGRAM which IMHO
is the msot important one that has come about since I've been a member
of the squad? A mystic aspect of reality exists, who's really argue
against that without saying that the concept of Quality is not valid?
But who else would really contend that rational thought and logical
expression are of no value within a discussion group that exists within
language? What are you guys really arguing about? And why?
Glove:
my arguement springs from assigning creation and dis-creation forces of
value to the static quality patterns of value in the Metaphysics of Quality.
if you havent been following the discussion its pretty hard to explain. i
have a paper at:
http://members.tripod.com/~Glove_r/Jaynes.html
best wishes
glove
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 - 16:02:44 BST