Keith A. Gillette (gillette@tahc.state.tx.us)
Thu, 23 Jul 1998 11:18:25 +0100
At 9:55 AM +0000 7/22/98, clark wrote:
> 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.
Ken,
Based on what you wrote above, I think you have a good handle on what
I'm trying to get across in my posts. I can understand your aversion to
mysticism, as I've shared them. My initial understanding of Pirsig's
Dynamic Quality was, I think, very similar to what you're proposing. My
mental picture of Dynamic Quality was of a kind of quantum flux, ever
changing, playing out the potentialities of the universe. However, in
rereading *ZMM* and *Lila*, taking some systems science classes in
college, and in reflecting on Pirsig's writings over the years, my ideas
have changed to the current mystic interpretation I've put across in my
recent posts, which I believe is a more accurate reflection of Pirsig's
intent.
> Anyway, back to the ranch. Your viewpoint also seems to suggest that DQ
>existed prior to, and is independent of, the physical universe.
I don't think I'd characterize my views quite that way. My sticking
point here is the use of 'prior' and 'independent of'. I think the
notion that there *is* a physical universe is our best explanation of
the data Dynamic Quality furnishes our senses. I don't see them as
separate "entities" "out there". The idea of a physical universe is how
we understand certain inorganic patterns within the context of Dynamic
Quality. Also, I think that the time relationship 'prior' is a tricky
issue as well. I think we can only speak of time relationships with
respect to Static Quality. Since our only data about Dynamic
Quality/Reality comes from our ever-present experience of *now*, we
can't really make ontological assertions about time. Time is the way we
understand some relationships between the perceived objects of Static
Quality.
> 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.
We also part company here, as I believe that our incomplete
understanding is a function of the relationship our descriptions of the
world bear to the world itself. A model of reality is never going to be
as rich as the reality itself. This is all there is to the "mystic
nature" of Dynamic Quality. I've tried to give a couple of expanded
arguments for this view is so in my previous posts, and I unfortunately
don't have another new compelling argument just now, so I'll just
reiterate that I don't believe it's possible for us to get outside of
our observational criteria to make any hard and fast judgments about
which interpretation of the world is ultimately true. All we can do is
say which is better.
Well, Ken, I doubt we'll be able to sway each other in our
interpretations. I have found it very valuable to put some of my
thoughts into words, however, and hash these things out.
Cheers,
Keith
______________________________________________________________________
gillette@tahc.state.tx.us -- <URL:http://www.detling.ml.org/gillette/>
-- 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