On 22 Nov 2000, at 2:04, Johannes Volmert wrote:
> I always appreciate the acknowledgement of the 'older ones', which
> gives me the feeling of not loosing the track, I may say. You are
> right in what you say, but I may insert, that for example an
> 'internet-discussion' is on the one hand predestinated for pure
> intellectual value, but on the other hand it can be also very, very
> fragile for I believe, concerning my personal experiences, that all of
> us tend to supplement those characteristics that has to be filled up
> to get an image of a person, are not quite real, are they? I've found,
> that we obviously try to create a kind of 'virtual person' and so that
> is the raeson, that our discussion is lacking partially reality. But
> that seems to be again the 'old' dilemma with 'social'- and
> 'intellectual'-values.
Hi Johannes and Apostles.
(the Anglicans may not know what John's "real" name was :-)
This is the month for confessional stuff so a little more on this note.
I have told (Marco) about my sitting around the cafes of my local
town writing and acting the local Sartre, but if someone comes up
to my table my writing stops - naturally - and I become the awfully
stiff person I detest. So, this writing me is the most true me, no
"intellectual" version of a more true physical one. The whole social-
intellectual complex can be conveyed by words, of which the
written kind is no less real than the talking-heads .
In your "Pile of thoughts" piece you asked:
> Is there good or bad instability?
The term 'instability' compared to 'dynamic' sounds a bit
depreciatory, something on the verge of collapse, but identical to
"dynamic" so let's examine it
In the Quality universe all is good: Dynamic Good and Static Good,
while evil is the result of the struggle between the static levels, not
between stability and instability. Accordingly, instability is - as
Pirsig says - undefinable good (unlimited good).
As said (in my response to Denis Poisson) there is no instability
to stability, which is to say that the stable levels are fixed except
the "outer part of" the [at any time] uppermost level which - in my
vision of the MOQ cosmology - borders on to Instability. Then you
ask:
> Exists such a position of (good?) instability, it is sufficient to
> give it a subtle push, to evoke a change of position. It is then not
> even necessary - for the one to give this subtle push - to know,
> which direction is needed(?)
To which I answer 'well'. It's the DQ that makes the uppermost
patterns escape from the grip of (now) Intellects rigidity. No one
knows intellectually what direction is favourable, otherwise the Q-
evolution wouldn't have reached the Intellectual level in the first
place. There is only one direction namely the one that leads
AWAY from the strictures of the last latch.
The rest of your paper may be good as gold, I only reached this far.
Don't invest too much in physics theories though, they work from
Intellect's static (IMO subject/object) premises and will turn out
ever more S/O-related stuff ...until the Q-physics takes over :-)
Thanks for reading.
Bo
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:28 BST