From: Valuemetaphysics@aol.com
Date: Fri Aug 27 2004 - 22:09:46 BST
Hi Mark,
Thank you for your patient and careful explanations! To my regret
they didn't answer all of my questions.
Is it so? I would say instead that Crocodile's DQ didn't require
Crocodile's static patterns to change. Crocodile's static patterns
perfectly well fitted Crocodile's DQ for millions of years.
Mark 27-8-04: Hello Ilya, A Crocodile does not have DQ. A Crocodile is a
relationship of sq patterns which respond to the same DQ. All sq patterns respond
to the same DQ.
All i am saying is that Crocodiles, as a group of patterned relationships,
don't respond to DQ very much.
Humans don't have DQ. Humans are relationships of sq patterns which respond
to the same DQ. All sq patterns respond to the same DQ.
All i am saying is that Humans respond to DQ a great deal: Humans are
biologically, socially, and intellectually evolving in response to the same DQ.
e.g. Humans can anticipate a large object collision with the Earth and have a
technology to help them deal with it. Crocodiles don't conceptualise and have
not come any closer to being able to do so in the last 1,000,000 years.
Ilya:
But doesn' matter! I don't like this interpretation of mine for the
same reason I don't like the above interpretation of yours: we both
consider DQ and static patterns as conceptual opposites. But as Paul
in his recent post "RE: MD The individual in the MOQ" showed it is not
right to do so!
Paul:
>> ...the second truth of Nagarjuna has the consequence that this whole
>> static world is ultimately identical to Dynamic Quality,
>> that there is really no division between static quality and
>> Dynamic Quality. Quite simply, if Dynamic Quality is undivided,
>> it can't be divided from static quality!
This is the very notion I had in mind when I wrote in my last letter
that static patterns cannot be closed to DQ by definition. I just
couldn't put it into words with such striking clarity as Paul did.
Patterns are not separate from DQ and therefore they cannot be closed
to DQ. And they cannot be MORE or LESS open to DQ either.
Mark 27-8-04: That's a neat trick used to show the Abhidharma the error of
intense classification, classification which moves one away from the Theravada
Buddhist tradition. Interestingly, if you move towards coherence you move
towards a blurring categories. If you move away from coherence you enforce
categories. For example, a motorcycle maintained at it's sweet spot may be said to be
one: the very best state it can be in. But a motorcycle maintained poorly will
be many different poor quality states - and that includes the rider!
That's kind of how it looks to me.
Vac> Mark 24-8-04: When a Dynamic advance is in progress there is the
possibility
Vac> of an accompanying static latch or a fall into chaos.
Mark, could you give me one example of a Dynamic advance WITHOUT an
accompanying static latch? I have troubles imagining it.
Mark 27-8-04: I have not suggested there are Dynamic advances without static
latching. 'Fall into chaos' means fail to latch.
How can
Dynamic Quality exist without static patterns? And the mirroring
question: how can static patterns exist without Dynamic Quality?
Mark 27-8-04: I have not suggested they do. You are confusing 'more and less'
with 'together and separate.' A more/less relationship does not have to
entail complete separation.
Vac> If you imagine a series
Vac> of very rapid advance/latch/advance/latch... type moves, then the
perfect
Vac> balance between these two is coherence.
I would save the term "coherence" to denote relationships between
static patterns only.
Mark 27-8-04: *In SODV Pirsig suggests that DQ is the event stream.
If the event stream is composed of patterned sq relationships, immediate
experience tells us some relationships are better than others:
For example, patterned sq relationship "Motorcycle" at t2 is operating at
optimum performance, (sweet spot - coherence) but at t1 was running badly and
cutting out all the time (incoherence). The sq relationships are being influenced
by DQ; the relationship between "Motorcycle" and patterned sq relationship
"mechanic."
In this sense, sq coherence and the event stream are two ways of looking at
the same thing.
But if you insist on using it to describe
relationships between static patterns and DQ also, I may coin another
term to denote relationships between static patterns only. Let it be
COORDINATION, for example.
Mark 27-8-04: If you wish Ilya.
Vac> Mark 24-8-04: The first dimension: This is an interesting way of looking
at
Vac> it. However, you have introduced a reductionist approach here in that
you feel
Vac> it is appropriate to identify basic patterns of sq.
I don't understand why you call my approach reductionist Mark?
What do I reduce to what?
Best regards,
Ilya
Mark 27-8-04: You tried to isolate what a static pattern was i think you
would be reductionist because static patterns are always in relationships.
All the best,
Mark
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 : Fri Aug 27 2004 - 22:33:05 BST