From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Tue Aug 05 2003 - 18:45:53 BST
Hi Squonk,
I'm entirely sympathetic to your aesthetic emphasis of the MOQ. I think
you're on to something very important, but find your explanations hard
to follow. For example:
> There are no subjects and objects in the MoQ.
> Therefore, there cannot be any objectivity, or subjectivity either.
There are plenty of subjects and objects in the MOQ. Pirsig admits as
much. One can barely utter a sentence without employing subjects and
objects. Our language is fundamentally based on the S/O split. I don't
think denying this is helpful in promoting understanding of the MOQ.
> So, a search for objectivity is futile, and supposing subjective quality
> presupposes a subject.
Objectivity, as Steve has eloquently pointed out, is based on
measurement. Far from being futile, measurement (objectivity) is the
basis of science which has brought untold benefits to mankind.
> The MoQ says experience is primary, and it is of static quality.
I beg to differ. The MOQ says experience is primary and is synonymous
with Quality. Quality is then cut into Dynamic and static. Thus, pure
experience is both Dynamic and static simultaneously.
> Therefore, the most dynamic patterns will likely dominate static
> experience.
This doesn't follow from your previous assertion.
> As intellectual patterns are empirically verifiable as the
> most dynamic, (thus providing evidence for a hierarchy of evolutionary
> related patterns) it is intellectually patterned experience that a
> Metaphysics is concerned with.
Nor does this follow. At least, I can't make sense of it.
> Intellectual patterns have a dynamic component and a static component.
Here's an intellectual pattern. "My dog has fleas." Now please point
out the dynamic and static components and why you think they are so.
> The relationship between the two began with the symbolic representation
> of other patterns of value - biological and social. So, we can see that
> intellect developed at a point very much associated with lower patterns.
> As symbolic manipulation became more dynamic, the relationship between
> the static and dynamic aspects of the intellectual process became
> increasingly self serving.
Again, very difficult for me to follow. How does symbolic manipulation
become more dynamic? Can you cite some examples? What do you mean by
self-serving. Who's the self in this case?
>Ancient Greek civilisation was to intellect as sex was biological
> patterns - the intellect at this stage in its evolution began to
> transcend its static evolution - began to become more dynamic than its
> ancient social and biological symbolic origins and became a method of
> inferring highly stable relationships between aesthetically pleasing
> patterns of static quality. This development crystallised definitions
> under the geometric method, thus allowing patterns if social and
> biological experience to appear more static than they are.
Don't mean to be rude, but it's Greek to me.
> To introduce objectivity as a drive for intellectual value is to
> reinforce the geometric method. But this method is not one of subjects
> and objects - it is an intellectual aesthetic in response to, and in a
> relationship with DQ. Evidence for this is found in the manifold
> geometry's and dimensions available to intellectual artists today,
> (mathematicians and physicians). So, paradoxically, mathematics now
> appears to be subjective, if one allows any discussion of subjects and
> objects into the MoQ.
If this means that there's an aesthetic component to theories of high
quality, I agree. Otherwise, I can't imagine what you're referring to.
I think Pirsig is much more of an "intellectual artist" than most
doctors I know.
> Sadly, i have also witnessed the static intellectual patterns of an
> older generation holding onto outmoded concepts and ideas. It is largely
> to these people that integration is aimed, but it is unfortunate that
> such integration is not valued from a MoQ perspective, and appears to be
> continually misinterpreted.
Well, it's easy to accuse anyone who can't follow you reasoning or
disagreeing with your approach as being out of touch because of
outmoded ideas. But, I would say if you can't express your ideas so
anyone with at least a high school education (in a decent school) can
understand, regardless of his current age, then the problem is yours,
not the reader's.
> There are no subjects and objects in the MoQ. If you go with this, i
> assure you it makes things more coherent.
So far, the coherent part escapes me. But I encourage you to keep
trying to explain your deas because, as I said, I think your aesthetic
approach is significant to a full understanding of the MOQ.
Platt
You cannot make yourself feel something you do not feel, but you can
make yourself do right in spite of your feelings. - Pearl S. Buck
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 : Tue Aug 05 2003 - 18:44:22 BST