Horse (horse@wasted.demon.nl)
Sun, 14 Jun 1998 04:37:11 +0100
Hi Squad
There seems to have been a number of anthropocentric deliberations
regarding the DQ/SQ split in a number of the posts so far.
I think the first thing to remember is that how WE view DQ and SQ is
largely determined by the PoV's that have created us and not vice versa.
Next, the divisions that we are discussing (Quality -> DQ/SQ & SQ ->
PoV's) are largely a convenience in order that we can relate everyday
experience to some form of reality. From the MoQ there is _ONLY_
Quality. The divisions are a form of filter that enable us to cope with
what we experience.
Maybe I'm pointing out the obvious, but there seem to be the same
problems emerging here as have emerged in previous descriptions of
reality - the map of the territory gets mistaken for the territory
itself. As I see it we're building a model of Quality and discussing how
that model relates to Quality. Is the model sufficiently coherent to
properly represent Quality? When we try and explain the DQ/SQ split and
the SQ PoV's we need to keep in mind that they are a convenience and not
treat them as if they are Quality.
There seem to be two main models emerging at the moment, the first is
that DQ is apart from SQ and that SQ consists of a hierarchical and
evolutionary system of separate and disjoint levels of static patterns
of value. The second is similar to the first except that the
hierarchical system of patterns of value are not static but are part
dynamic and part static.
The problem with the first model is that of interaction. In my first
post I asked:
"At times it [DQ] appears to be what drives the process of change -
Evolution? - whilst at other times it is that
level/process/phenomenom(?) beyond Intellect. How does something that is
so seperate from knowable patterof value interact with them."
This applies to both DQ and the SQ component as a hierarchical
structure. What mechanism could exist as an interface between the
individual levels and similarly how does DQ interact with the levels in
order that there is some form of change/evolution within any particular
level. This seems reminiscent of the Cartesian mind/body problem.
Positing Dynamic quality as the interface between the levels doesn't
work as there appears to be a need for some form of Dynamic component
within any particular level in order for those patterns to
change/evolve.
The problem with the second model is similar to the first, although this
looks a more acceptable position. There is still the problem that if
each level is separate and disjoint and higher levels evolved from lower
levels by the action of dynamic quality acting upon/within the patterns
at each level, then how has each level become seperate and why.
I would be surprised if there is a coherent and acceptable solution to
the problems of the first model, for many of the reasons that the
Cartesian model eventually became discredited.
The second model is a lot better, although there needs to be an amount
of modification before it becomes coherent and acceptable.
Some possible solutions and/or ideas to throw around:
Dynamic Quality - This seems to be something about which not everyone is
in agreement. As I see it, DQ is what is referred to as change or
evolution. Herein lies the problem. We can never observe change or
evolution. All we can do, at best, is observe the end product of that
change - i.e. that which is remaining after change has occurred. I think
Pirsig refers to Dynamic Quality as 'the pre-intellectual cutting edge
of reality' or something like that. In other words, DQ exists in a
different time frame to that which we exist in. By the time we have
become aware of change, that change is in the past. There is a time lag
caused by our senses and perception. By living in the phenomenal world
we effectively live in the past with respect to Dynamic Quality. We can
never be aware of DQ, only what it leaves behind. I believe that this is
what we refer to as Static Quality.
Static Quality - The divisions we perceive within SQ do not exist. SQ is
not separate or disjoint, nor is it Static. The flotsam and jetsam
thrown out by the action of DQ is Static only when it exists in our
past. These are the old patterns of Value of which we have been aware.
The patterns of Value themselves are constantly changing and
interacting. Each level is attached to the level above and/or below it.
So we perceive where DQ has been as the levels of Static Quality - but
only the past can be truly Static.
The model(s) of Quality suggested so far suggest DQ and SQ are divisions
of Quality. So to postulate that each level is seperate from each other
level and that DQ is separate from SQ is to say that there are at least
5 types or flavours of Quality - ???!!!???. Either there is a problem
with the unifying model of reality as Quality or there is a mistake in
the model. I think that the latter is where the problem lies.
The DQ/SQ split is wrong in assuming that there is any separateness. DQ
is the change that occurs TO patterns of Value whilst 'patterns of
Value' is a system used to differentiate those parts of Quality which
appear to have different characteristics. Those differences are a result
of our perception. All of the change, AS IT OCCURS, (DQ) is out of range
of human senses. The 'levels' of SQ are within range but appear so
disparate that we assume they ARE different. WRONG.
Pisig states that reality is really very easy to understand - a small
child can understand it. The model that we are building must also be
easy to understand. There is no mystical or mysterious nature to
Quality.
Horse
"Making history, it turned out, was quite easy.
It was what got written down.
It was as simple as that!"
Sir Sam Vimes.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:21 CEST