clark (clark@netsites.net)
Wed, 22 Jul 1998 05:33:36 +0100
LS and Keith,
I have read through your latest post three times and still had to
print
it off for reference. I am increasingly having trouble holding long,
closely reasoned, arguments in my head, that is probably why I tend to
make
pronouncements in my posts rather than arguments.
From my interpretation of your posts I see very little difference in
our
conclusions. It seems to me that our main difference is in our
interpretation of Dynamic Quality. I read your interpretation of DQ as
being a somewhat mystical entity that exists independently of the
physical
universe, or better perhaps, that doesn't even exist. That it is just a
"placeholder" that marks our level of understanding of reality as
revealed
by our current concept of static quality. This idea makes sense and I
can
immediately think of no convincing argument against it. However, it
still
doesn't suit me. My bias against mysticism is long standing. I only feel
comfortable with a materialistic explanation of our situation in the
universe. To understand my viewpoint better read an article in the July
20, 1998 issue of the New Yorker magazine entitled "Forcing the End
(Letter
>From Jerusalem)" by Lawrence Wright. It is a long article about the
interaction and beliefs among the world's fundamentalist religions. It
is
well written and seems to be well researched and if it does not give you
the willies about a large body of opinion and beliefs that are awash in
the
world then you don't need to be concerned about the MOQ. This is not
about
the mainstream religions of the world.
Anyway, back to the ranch. Your viewpoint also seems to suggest that DQ
existed prior to, and is independent of, the physical universe.
My interpretation is that DQ and SQ are separate and distinct
entities,
that DQ is the product of the physical organization of the universe and
does not exist independently, or prior to, the physical universe. We use
the Big Bang as a shorthand reference to the beginning of the universe
but
this is not necessary. Any other beginning will do, or even cycles of
expansion and contraction. Whatever establishes the physics of the
universe
is sufficient.
I realize that this causes a conflict with Pirsig's ideas as set forth
in
Lila but in my opinion a lack of ability to define DQ stems from our
incomplete understanding of our physical situation and not from the
intrinsic indefinability of DQ. As far as I can see now this means that
DQ
will never be definable. Our concepts of DQ do not seem to me to be too
far
apart, just its origin and location.
In my view both DQ and SQ are interrelated and our awareness and
interpretation of them is constantly changing as our understanding of
our
position in the physical universe changes. DQ does not, of course,
change
because in my view it is fixed by the energetics of the universe. We are
simply unable, because of ignorance, to see the whole of it. DQ exists
whether we recognize it or not.
To reiterate my position, DQ is the range of possibilities that are
made
available by the fallout of the energetics that occurred at the
beginning,
whatever and whenever that was.
Jonathan, I apologize if I have inadvertently stolen your ideas. I,
too,
have been harping on this subject for some time. Ken Clark
-- homepage - http://www.moq.org/lilasquad unsubscribe/queries - mailto:lilasquad@moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:28 CEST