Bo, Jonathan, MF
BO:
> Stop to take a breath Jaap :-)! The dynamics of a stone? When
> existence was all inorganic ....read the part about the carbon atom
> in LILA (page149) and we must discard the SOM imagery of any
> spirit force invading dead matter. DQ works at the - at any time -
> uppermost level. Right now it's Intellect, but it's stability (the view of
> reality as SOM) is solid as a stone ......more so it looks ;-)
>
Hi Bo,
a few note about this "dynamism of the stone" sub-thread (hoping I'm not too
off-topic). You have probably seen that I've written something about the DQ at
work in the case of the Marble/Michelangelo artistic interaction. Of course, in
that occasion, the stone is part of the intellectual level (according to my
interpretation of intellect, but this is another story), so this eventual
dynamism of the stone is DQ working at the intellectual level during the
artist/masterpiece interaction.
On the other hand, you exclude the possibility of a direct DQ action on the
inorganic level. I want to try to connect this point to the last month thread
(Time) and the recent "Toffler" thread on MD. My reasoning goes this way:
1) Every level is "more dynamic" . What does it mean really? I'd say, it's more
able to evolve, to transform DQ into sQ.
2) Time is (according to my interpretation) the term we use to indicate the
process of "changing". In other terms, time is DQ at work.
3) We know that the "era" of every level (the period of its dominance) proceeds
more quickly on new levels. Billions years of inorganic era; hundreds of
millions of biological era; tens of thousands of social era; about the
intellectual era, I avoid anticipations, but we all agree that "time has been
running faster than ever" since 50 years, at least.
Trying a conclusion from these considerations, I'd say that it's not really that
"DQ works at the - at any time - uppermost level". Could well be that DQ is
still working on the carbon atom (or even on different atoms) to create new
forms of life or whatever else more dynamic, but probably such a process needs
billions of years of stability and, simply, we are "too fast" now to glimpse it.
The same could be also for the other levels.
I think there's nothing of revolutionary in my words, but, well, saying that DQ
works on the uppermost level sounds a bit religious: something like: "DQ *knows*
that now intellect is the uppermost level". On the other hand, saying that the
uppermost level is more rapid in the DQ-to-sQ process (more dynamic), sounds to
my hears very rational and MOQish,
.... perhaps.
Jonathan:
<<<
Pirsig hasn't really done away with the SO at all, but has incorporated
it into his MOQ. If we consider subject as the observer and object as
the observed (things that happen), Pirsig has created multiple
non-exclusive subjects. The observer observes at the molecular level, or
is an organism observing at the biological level, or a society observing
at the social level etc. Thus subject and object become relative terms.
Objectivity thus also becomes relative - (-: depending, of course, on
how you look at it :-).
>>>
Is this idea now generally acceptable to all participants, or is it restricted
to just the three of us?
Hi Jonathan,
Sure that I agree. I have offered the example of the artist/stone interaction as
the contrast is more strong. But I've always considered that when the sun warms
the stone, well, here we have an inorganic interaction. Or when a stone falls
down and cracks my head, here is also a biological interaction. And so on....
About the reversibility of the subject/object split... it's pretty obvious to
me. Example? What you (English) call "the subject" of this mail, here in Italy
is the "object" ....
Ciao
Marco
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:31 BST