Hi Roger
You asked:
>
> >>>> Q1) DQ is the answer to the question: "How can anything become?"
> Without it, everything would be completely static. Not static as in
> unmoving, but as in predictable.>>>>>>
>
> How can it become? Is Dq unpredictableness?
Yes, unpatterned - unpredictable, tomato - tomato.
The main "purpose" of DQ is to promote change, and all true changes are
unpredictable. A predictable change is a pattern. If the result of a real
change is another pattern, we say that something new has become.
> >>>>>>> Q2) The QE is the source of two SPoV, each one being the subject from
> its point
> of view. All QEs are more or less dynamic>>>>>>.
>
> How does it make these SPoV's?
Hmm... A tough one, I guess the easy way out is to say that since we're
talking about the QE, the ground stuff of reality, we can't really dissect
it more. The QE isn't made of sub-QEs.
Another part of the answer is SQ. The two patterns in each QE are preserved
from the previous QE, so the SPoVs aren't completely reinvented each time.
But the bottom line, and the MoQ is very clear on this, is that we can't
know anything about what's going on "below" the QE, because the QE is the
source of everything we call reality, and if we could dig deeper into the
QE we would not be examining our reality but a sub reality.
> >>>>> Q3)SQ is the answer to the question: "How can anything be?"
> Without it, the patterns from one QE wouldn't live to see the next.>>>>>
>
> How can it be?
That's the question for which SQ is the answer. As I said above, if it
weren't for SQ, every QE would produce two completely random SPoVs,
i.e. chaos.
> How do these QE's "live".
The patterns "live", not the QEs. Granted, "live" is not the best term
here, I believe "last" is better.
> What is sq made of?
The stuff that green dreams are made of. :) Seriously, I don't think
the MoQ can, or wants to, answer that. As I said above, that would be
to examine our sub reality and would be some kind of metametaphysics.
> >>>>> Q4) Mu. I don't think the levels "emerged". Troy's rock a few months ago
> comes to mind. The lunar geologists on Apollo 17 looked at rocks formed
> billions of years ago, but they read them like an open book. To them,
> they were intellectual patterns, just as the ink in a book.>>>>>>
>
> So are they levels? How would you explain them if they didn't emerge out of
> each other? Do they need explaining?
They are levels. A metaphysics can define levels without a physics to
exemplify them, just as the definition of a language - a grammar -
can define a language without specifying each possible sentence of the
language.
Do they need explaining? Well, no, the universe managed quite allright
before Pirsig. But I think every person interested in the workings of
reality should check them out.
> >>>>Q5) Not toward, away from static patterns, but still dependent on
> them.>>>>>>
>
> What is away from static patterns? And how can it be away and dependent?
Just as the flowers of a cherry tree grows away from the trunk. The
flowers are more dynamic and more beautiful than the trunk, but still
dependent on it.
> 1a)Quality is value. Everything is defined and created by value.
>
> 1b)Dynamic Quality is pure experience. Pure experience is preconceptual value
> change or interaction.
>
> 3)Static quality is patterned, conceptualized experience.
>
> 2)The quality event is an experience event collapsing potential preconceptual
> quality into definite conceptualized patterns.
No Roger! No! This is where the mind-matter split begins, and there's no end
to it! Your version of SQ (3) is intellectual patterns only, not any other type.
And your version of DQ (1b) is all types of patterns, or more precisely the QE.
If DQ would be "pure preconceptual experience", then the earths history would
consist of nothing but DQ until a few million years ago when the first human
formed her first thought.
Magnus
MOQ Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:54 BST