Doug Renselle (renselle@on-net.net)
Sun, 18 Jan 1998 20:00:11 +0100
Hi TLS and Hugo,
I want to comment on two more of your ideas about the Principles.
Usually we agree, but two areas below give minor distress:
Hugo Fjelsted Alroe wrote:
>
> On the principles:
>
> >3. Dynamic Quality and static quality.
> >The best way to divide Quality is into patterns of Dynamic and static
...
>
> >9. Evolution.
> >To create ever higher levels of awareness, Dynamic Quality strives
> for
> >freedom from all static patterns. Freedom is the highest Good in the
> >Metaphysics of Quality. Life is migration of static patterns of
> quality
> >toward Dynamic Quality.
>
> I would say the exact reverse of the last sentence ( Life is migration
> of
> Dynamic Quality toward static patterns of quality) and yet the first
> form
> has some merit too. This has to do with the distinction between a
> primeval
> sort of dynamic quality and a conditioned sort of dynamic quality, or
> rather, this has to do with what the static-dynamic split tends to
> hide of
> the nature of quality.
Hugo,
I am OK up to this point:
Doug.
> Dynamic quality is the potency of becoming,
> initially unbounded, but as the reality becomes real, dynamic quality
> is
> bounded by, as well as founded on, what has become real. Yes, the
> dynamic
> quality of intellectual freedom has arisen through evolution, but it
> has
> arisen only because the necessary static patterns which may support
> (give
> rise to) such intellect have evolved. Perhaps we could say that Life
> (here
> taken to be something like the creative evolutionary processes of our
> world) is the migration (or a movement or simply evolution?) of
> Dynamic
> Quality from the uniform unlimited (in both senses, without any
> bounds on
> what it can be and without any innner limits or differences,
> un-differentiated that is) towards the complex unlimited.
> This is only a tentative formulation, but the issue is pivotal in my
> understanding of Metaphysics of Quality.
>
Hugo,
The above references to Quality as bounded, for me, are problematic. I
do not see the accumulation of SQ as bounding Quality.
In comparison, I see one of SQ's goals that of approaching
asymptotically infinite intellect. However, I do not see this progress
as bounding Quality in any way. SQ is unlimited on the upside, yet it
in no way bounds Quality. IMhO.
Doug Renselle.
> >11. Proof.
> >It is impossible to refute that Quality is reality without asserting
> a
> >value.
>
> I do not much like the 'proof' idea. Any internally consistent system
> can
> provide such proofs (though not all proofs - Goedel), this is the
> strenght
> of the extreme 'subjectivcism' - solipsism, for instance, but that
> does not
> tell us anything on the practical usefulness of the system. I think
> the
> idea of a proof of MoQ goes against what MoQ is about.
>
Hugo,
One of the great strokes of genius from Kurt Goedel in the 1920s and
1930s was his use of self-reference (recursion) to achieve his
"Incompleteness Theorems."
I like Platt's "Proof" principle for exactly this reason.
Platt shows perspective at an extraordinary, high, Quality level in this
statement. It is simple, elegant, and after Platt opened our eyes with
it, it as do all great breakthroughs, became intuitive.
That's my view,
Doug Renselle.
> I have not had time to check this against the views of Pirsig, but I
> am
> sure others can enlighten me :-)
>
Hugo,
I agree with or feel neutral about your other comments.
Thanks for the hard work on TLS' Principles.
Mtty,
Doug.
-- "The cause of our current social crises,..., is a genetic defect within the nature of reason itself."By Robert M. Pirsig, in 'Zen & the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance,' p. 102 (paperback), Bantam, 28th edition, May 1982.
-- post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:38 CEST