foci,
Since I suggested this month's topic I felt the need to open this
discussion by giving a more complete oversight of my problems. It became a
little long, but I can't treat such complex problems shortly.
The topic is three fold:
My first thought was that if the static-dynamic split is an other way to
split the same group fenomena befor classified with the
subject-object split, then (according to geometrical intuition) these
"lines" should cut each other ((assuming they are independent)). Thus I
feel that both SOM elements, the object and the subject, should cross the
static-dynamic split and consist of both a dynamic and a static part. Do
you, foci, agree on this assumption or are there for instance objects that
are entirely static, or subjects that are entirely dynamic ? (Please don't
say there aren't subjects or objects at all - the point is to reach MOQ
from SOM.)
> - Describe 'object' in terms of MOQ; which are its static parts, and
> which are its dynamic
> parts ?
One problem for me is that when Pirsig unfolds the four levels, he seems
to think of the levels in relation only to the human subjects. But what
would you say about for instance a stone, a pattern of the anorganic
level. Its static part looks obvious: its fysical continuation in space
and time and its reproduction of the laws of fysics. But what about the
dynamic part, going from the anorganic level in the dynamical direction
you end up at the biological level - but the stone is not a organism, for
it is a anorganic pattern, right foci ? So where does its DQ come from ?
For simplicities sake I asume that the static-dynamic spectrum is
one-dimensional, you go either up or down and going up you stumble on the
biological level. On the other hand regarding the stone as nothing more
but a pattern of the anorganic level, you treat it like an object; SOM
sneaking in the back door, you just redefine the status of objects, namely
a pattern of the anorganic level. On the other hand you can say that every
level is already a mixture of SQ and DQ, but the only insight gained by
that is that the fysical laws allowe for some Dynamic influence, but no
SOM scientist will denie that.
(Note the inconsistency: first I think of an absolute
static-dynamic split (like the SOM subject-object split), but then it
appears to be a gradual spectrum of levels climbing from less dynamic to
more dynamic level.)
> - Describe 'subject' in terms of MOQ; which are its static parts, and
> which are its dynamic
> parts ?
The Dynamic and static parts of the subject seem to be more obvious, for
on one hand you have the patterns at several levels, building a consistent
and continu individual, and on the other hand you have DQ, randomly
chanching the patterns and protecting against determinism. But then again,
according to SOM philosofy, the subject doesn't strictly need a
fysical body; the subject is more some random collection of feelings and
intellect. In short, the subject is nothing more than the observing mind.
Of this mind I would propose the identity as a basic static part, folowing
MOQ you can argue that this identity is rooted in a social level (for most
people true, according to sociology), the social level in turn rooted in a
biologic level etc. . As Dynamic part I propose things like fantasy,
inspiration etc. . This I can work with without much problems - but note
that this is a MOQ approach crossing the borders of the SOM subject.
The following was the base of a reply to the 'guru-mail' ;-) - but this reply
ended up as a topic suggestion:
In Lila there is a passage concernig the green 'flash' of the sun,
Pheadrus has first seen it after he reads about it in some kind of sailing
handbook, only after he regards it as 'something', after valuing it, he
can observe it (I regret having only a dutch edition so I can't quote). My
question is: was the flash actualy there before Pheadrus starts valuing
it ? If you say yes, how then does something that isn't valued get
Quality, it is a experience of an observer after all, isn't it ? But if
you say no: is the tree there when nobody has ever looked on him ? And
isn't it not entirely random which things we value, and thus see ? You
could even argue that static patterns are subjective and only 'exist' in
the mind. It is a crucial point in the devellopment of the 'Quality
concept' that the subjects recognises and values Quality -only see the
motto of ZAMM- but this point makes me falling in the trap of
'subjectivism' over and over again.
> - Describe the relation between subject and object in terms of MOQ, and
> show why the
> object-subject split is denied by MOQ.
The first consolidation of subject and object can be made by stating that
they share a common anorganic level (or, if the object is an organism,
some more levels). But to completely erase the subject-object split you
should say something like: object and subject ARE the same anorganic level
(to be precise, patterns of this level, but all patterns can be regarded
as one, more complex pattern). I think I would like this kind of
statement, that object and subject do not differ since they are the same
thing - that thing being something like "Reality", and ofcourse consisting
of at least four levels etc. etc. It looks like the mystic unification
some MOQ'ers are looking for, but isn't it, in a way, just returning to
medieval philosofy - the human intellect as a stage in the all enclosing
hierarchy of beings ?
I hope to read your solutions and opinions regarding these problems soon,
Jaap
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:31 BST