Re: MD Time

From: ian glendinning (
Date: Wed May 25 2005 - 07:55:20 BST

  • Next message: ian glendinning: "Re: MD Time"


    You said - if I may condense ..
    "Pirsig's division into DQ and SQ is too simple ... [and is in error]
    ... because it privileges DQ over sq (explicitly)."

    Agreed, but let's not throw baby (MoQ) out with the bathwater here.

    D/S - Every binary-chop classification is an intellectual convenience
    of some zillion shades of grey in complex reality. MoQ is not exempt.
    DQ / SQ simply identifies an axis, a dimension, a degree of freedom,
    an issue, our world view must recognise.

    Q/q - There absolutely is no doubt Dynamics is lost without the static
    latches - they depend on each other to be where they are. But, anyone
    trying to be radical is going to tend to favour DQ - it's more
    exciting, sexy, risky, etc. Anyone being passive and conservative,
    would have little reason to have an opinion on the matter let alone
    post one to a discussion board. We are a self-selecting bunch. Except
    Platt that is, whose reason to contribute is to have fun taunting the
    radicals :-) - but that makes him perversely Q IMHO. In other words,
    Q/q is just human nature.

    So rather than abandoning MoQ - just swap out Metaphysics for Model. A
    good useful working model of the real world (including human nature,
    by gad.) But nothing fundamantally metaphysical. There is no
    metaphysics anyway - MoQ is simply the best of a misguided bunch.


    On 5/24/05, Scott Roberts <> wrote:
    > Mike,
    > First, a warning that I am more of a MOQ dissenter than a MOQist, so don't
    > assume that what I say is an interpretation of Pirsig. It's more of a
    > counter metaphysics.
    > In my view, Pirsig's division into DQ and SQ is too simple, in part for the
    > point you made in an earlier post that the dynamic is the permanent, and the
    > static is the changing. I have frequently used the phrase "the logic of
    > contradictory identity" (taken from Nishida) to deal with this: Your raising
    > the issue of time is another case where the logic of contradictory identity
    > (LCI) applies. We experience continuity because we change, and experience
    > change because we are continuous. One has a situation where the LCI is
    > required when you have two terms, which contradict each other, but at the
    > same time constitute each other.
    > The point of this is to keep the contradictory identity at the forefront,
    > while metaphysical error occurs when one of the two terms is privileged over
    > the other. The MOQ, in my view, falls into error because it privileges DQ
    > over SQ (explicitly so, given that a true-blue MOQist will refer to them as
    > DQ and sq, not DQ and SQ). Hence, I think you are wrong to say "because the
    > interaction itself empirically precedes the static patterns". The empirical
    > is the static pattern, which in being experienced is dynamic.
    > My other main gripe against the MOQ is its devaluation of intellect with
    > respect to DQ. In this, the MOQ continues the modernist error of thinking of
    > intellect and language as a set of human add-ons to a universe that is
    > fundamentally without them. Instead, I see Intellect as also being a
    > dynamic/static contradictory identity, that is, as being at the same
    > metaphysical level as Quality, and so if one wants to investigate how the
    > dynamic and static interact, there is no better place for it than
    > investigating one's own consciousness. But, according to the MOQ, this is an
    > error, which says we should put our intellect to sleep in order to
    > experience "pure experience". I consider "pure experience" to be a MOQ
    > chimera.
    > - Scott
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: Michael Hamilton
    > To:
    > Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 4:05 AM
    > Subject: Re: MD Time
    > Hello again,
    > Luckily I just stumbled across the relevant chapter of Lila's Child, so I'm
    > now aware that I'm doing something "dangerous" by trying to tie DQ to an
    > existing concept. I definitely need to clarify my suggestion.
    > By "Time", I wasn't referring to the concepts we have of before and after,
    > or the arbitary ways in which we divide time into minutes and seconds and so
    > forth. If it's even possible, I was referring to time in a concept-free way,
    > as the thoroughly empirical and undefined Big Long Now, equivalent to
    > Pirsig's wordier description "the first slice of undifferentiated
    > experience". I guess that Pirsig's description is much better, because
    > "Time" has a monstrous amount of philosophical, conceptual and scientific
    > baggage attached to it.
    > However, I still think that the MOQ leads to all sorts of interesting
    > thoughts about time, with the proviso that these thoughts always involve
    > intellectual conceptualisations. Time is the constant interaction of static
    > patterns, though calling it "interaction" is misleading, because the
    > interaction itself empirically precedes the static patterns. The success of
    > a static pattern in this constant interaction (time) determines its quality.
    > And so on...
    > Regards,
    > Mike

    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    Nov '02 Onward -
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed May 25 2005 - 08:16:19 BST