Re: MD Re: The individual in the MOQ

From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Sun Aug 22 2004 - 14:48:17 BST

  • Next message: Platt Holden: "Re: MD MOQ and Logic/Science"

    Hi Ham,

    Platt:
    > > Again, I've apparently misled you. I consider physical reality to be
    > > inorganic and biological value patterns.

    Ham:
    > This is neither a concept nor a definition I can understand, Platt. And
    > the forced addition of "value" adds nothing to your intended meaning.

    That's because you fail to grasp Pirsig's initial premise that reality is
    value-centered.

    Platt:
    > > I fully support the MOQ's version of evolution as being an evolution of
    > > values, not just bones, muscle and nerve tissue.

    Ham:
    > Who or what "evolves" these values, and where can they be found in animal
    > tissue?

    Dynamic Quality "evolves" these values. Every cell in an animal's tissue
    exhibits value preferences.

    > I'm, sorry Platt; these phrases may resonate in some way with LILA
    > fans, like the punch-line of joke no. 26. But they lack substance. Again,
    > it's not your fault. It's the fact they refer to a philosophy that was
    > never postulated.

    Pirsig's metaphysics has been postulated many times. Reality is Quality,
    divided for metaphysical purposes into Dynamic and static quality.
     
    > You quote the Master:
    > > "Biological evolution can be seen as a process by which weak
    > > Dynamic forces at a subatomic level discover stratagems for overcoming
    > > huge static inorganic forces at a superatomic level. They do this by
    > > selecting superatomic mechanisms in which a number of options are so
    > > evenly balanced that a weak Dynamic force can tip the balance one way or
    > > another. The particular atom that the weak Dynamic subatomic forces have
    > > seized as their primary vehicle is carbon. (Lila, 11)
    >
    > Is Pirsig implying that DQ is a conscious force? How else could it
    > "discover stratagems"? Let me pull an "msh" on you and copy this quotation
    > minus "Dynamic", "static", and the verbs "discover" and "selecting".
    >
    > > "Biological evolution can be seen as a process by which weak
    > > forces at a subatomic level overcome
    > > huge inorganic forces at a superatomic level. They do this by
    > > superatomic mechanisms in which a number of options are so
    > > evenly balanced that a weak force can tip the balance one way or
    > > another. The particular atom that the weak subatomic forces have
    > > seized as their primary vehicle is carbon.
    >
    > Doesn't this revision express everything one needs to know about the
    > author's SOM concept as it relates to evolution? That forces are "dynamic"
    > goes without saying. To call them Dynamic adds nothing to the concept
    > unless one chooses to read some unconventional meaning into this adjective.
    > Obviously it must. So why doesn't he define the meaning he wants us to
    > infer? After all, what are words without meaning?

    Not all forces are "dynamic." Many forces, like light and gravity, are
    static. (Otherwise, science wouldn't work). Pirsig describes the
    difference between Dynamic and static quality many times in LlLA. Makes me
    wonder if you have read the book.

    Ham:
    > Stay tuned. I'm about to answer a note from Chris Phoenix whose
    > objectivist view of reality is even more impermeable!

    In your post to Chris you revealed the initial premise of your philosophy:

    "The essence of reality may be understood as either objective (i.e.,
    insensible) or subjective (i.e., experiential)."

    This is nothing but Descartes old mind-matter split. Your "essence"
    reverts to a subject-object dichotomy, like a thousand other philosophies.
    So what's new? Pirsig is new. For him, the essence of reality is Quality
    which may be understood as either Dynamic or static. (To think requires
    division. We divide to survive.)

    Reality consists of unpatterned (Dynamic) and patterned (static) values.
    The universe isn't structured by mind and matter--it's value-structured.
    As such, it embraces the "value" you place on the mind-matter split as
    well as the value you ascribe to your essence philosophy..

    Best,
    Platt
      

    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 : Sun Aug 22 2004 - 14:45:01 BST