Jonathan B. Marder (marder@agri.huji.ac.il)
Sun, 5 Jul 1998 17:52:55 +0100
Hi Bo, Theo, Platt, Horse, Squad,
Bo:-
>the CHANGE VS PERMANENCE is generally accepted [as the DQ/SQ split.
As I see it, Change vs. Permanence is a function only of time. If this
split is primary, then time as its cause must be even more primary;-) I
believe that Pirsig would not want us to demote Q in this way. Instead,
we should regard time as a conceptual tool for picturing reality.
Theo wrote:-
>I find myself in agreement with
>Jonathan and Bo, and Diana ...
And I thought I was in disagreement with Bo and Diana!
but then Theo adds:
>DQ has its own morality, ie freedom.
Platt said something similar:-
>Pirsig's working definition of *better* is that which leads to greater
>versatility and freedom.
Now I'm going to say something very uncool - the tendency towards "more
degrees of freedom" is the second law of thermodynamics. The driving
force of all (re)actions is increase in total entropy.
Horse has voiced strong objection to our dualistic approach:-
>So it's back to SOM definitions then is it? Either this OR that. One
>thing as opposed to another?
[snip] but then finishes off:
>DQ: Pre-intellectual transition from one state to another state.
>
>SQ: Gradual decay of any system towards obscurity and
>dissolution.
So now Horse and I agree on the "Preintellectual change" DQ definition.
At first, it seemed that "gradual decay" in Horse's SQ definition is
also "transition from one state to another", though he gives it an
ultimate direction - towards dissolution. My "uncool" observation is
that this is yet another expression of the second law of thermodynamics,
but where Theo stated the law in his DQ definition, Horse has it in SQ.
This blurring of the DQ/SQ split is fine by Horse because he sees no
real split ...
>...but a gradient between one state and another with no
>artificially imposed start/finish demarcation....
>Quality/Reality (all of it) consists of DQ AND SQ in such a way
>that neither is separable from the other in any meaningful/real way.
>[snip]DQ vs. SQ are two ways of looking at the same thing.
On the question of "reality". Horse wrote:-
>Theoretical constructs are real in terms of intellectual PoV's but to
>say that they constitute the rest of reality is to confuse the model
>of reality with reality itself.
To fall under the spell of "Maya". This is the Hindu view, but perhaps
not Pirsig's. "Reality itself" is irrelevant to any intellectual
structure, since it is unknowable. All we are left with are models. I
deliberately use the plural here because to use the singular is to imply
one absolute reality. Pirsig's point about alienation is that the
scientific model of reality is often incomprehensible to most people. If
people can't share the same models, then they can't share the same
reality.
To finish, I really liked the following statement from Horse:-
>SQ is what remains after DQ has done it's stuff and [SQ] is a
>gradual degradation towards dissolution (imagine a decaying
>oscillation - a ringing).
Whether we call this the second law of thermodynamics or not, I think
that the image is a good one.
Perhaps one can see the whole Universe as the ringing of a Big Bang.
What's missing in Horse's "decay" is recognition that the ringing
contains new patterns of ever growing complexity.
Regards to all, Jonathan
PS. Bo asked what I know about Sheldrake. The answer is not much, but I
believe that his untestable hypothesis about alternative communication
modes are unneeded. However, I do believe that we are influenced in
hitherto unknown ways by very mundane experiences - news items, popular
songs etc. IMO That's why the same great discovery is often made
independently by two people at the same time.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:27 CEST