Horse (horse@wasted.demon.nl)
Mon, 6 Jul 1998 07:54:53 +0100
Hi Platt and LS
Platt wrote:
"Pirsig made the point that DQ is NOT chaotic..."
You seem to have inadvertently misrepresented me. What I said
was:
"Pirsig made the point that DQ __ON ITS OWN__ is chaos,
whereas SQ __ON ITS OWN__ is stagnation and death of all
patterns."
I don't remember the chapter and page but that was the gist of it
and it seems reasonable and logical. The point is that SQ is the
latching mechanism for DQ and DQ is the means by which things
change. Take away SQ and DQ will become chaotic - utter
confusion - take away DQ and patterns called SQ will stagnate and
die.
This precisely what happens to any pattern given sufficient time.
Which was why I objected to the use of the word permanent. At
best any pattern will gain stability until it blends into the state
finally attained by all things. That of oneness with all other things
and indistinguishable from everything else. The end of everything if
you want. Some patterns get there before others.
So if you want to be more accurate with your definition of the
DQ/SQ split maybe it should read:
"DQ is change for freedom. SQ is STABILITY for order. Both are
values.
Neither can survive without the other."
Although obscurity and dissolution are states that any level tries to
avoid through DQ, in the end this is all there is - Nirvana - perfect
bliss and release from karma, attained by the extinction of
individuality.
Platt wrote:
"Lets agree, however, that DQ and SQ are a needed duality.
Perhaps we can also agree that other dualities (such as those
engendered by the proposition A or not A) are absolutely essential
when trying to communicate meaningfully with one another.
Otherwise, self-contradictory assertions such as "there are no
absolutes" and "nothing lasts forever" are in danger of being taken
seriously even though they are nonsensical on their face."
I don't agree that divisive forms of dualities are essential. This is
what created the SOM problem in the first place. When you
perform the first split of Quality into DQ AND SQ this does not
mean that they are forever separated. They are aspects of the
same thing that have a quality relationship with each other. I
honestly don't see Pirsig as a reductivist - do you? To say that the
Quality split is an either/or form - A OR NOT A - says just that.
Finally, to say that there are no absolutes or that nothing lasts
forever is not self-contradictory. It is a statement about reality as it
is - no more or less. If you want to get into philosophical
conundrums about those statements then do so - but you would be
advised to look at the many apparently self-contradictory
statements made within the Quantum Mechanics field, starting
with particle/wave duality.
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 - 16:43:27 CEST