> To: Roger
> From: Rick
> Re: The relationship of DQ to Chaos
>
ROGER:
> Although I can see value in your truth, it creates several problems from
my
> perspective. First, it again implies an objectivisation of reality, which
the
> MOQ flatly rejects.
Second, your model seems slightly more substantive than experiential.
The
> MOQ refers to DQ as a stream of quality events. To assign some type of
> level to DQ seems to drift away from this analogy.
> Third, I don't buy the chaos = DQ analogy. Pirsig admits flirting with
this
> concept, but I believe he too rejects it. The thread Jonathan and I are
> engaged in takes this issue on directly. Randomness and pattern are not
> intrinsic characteristics in reality, they are both interpretations of
> experience, or in the prior terminology, interpretations of quality
events.
RICK:
First, I must admit that the "sea/island analogy" I used in the post does
seem to imply the "objectivisation" you refer to, but I didn't mean it to
come out quite so... materialistic. It does come from Pirsig actually, from
the SODV paper pages 12/13--- " In this diagram you will notice that Dynamic
Quality is not shown in any block. It is in the background. This seems the
best way to represent it. It is not only outside the blocks, it pervades
them but it goes on where the blocks leave off. The blocks are organized in
the order of evolution, with each higher block more recent and more Dynamic
than the lower ones. The block at the top contains such static intellectual
patterns as theology, science, philosophy, mathematics. The placement of
intellect in this position makes it superior to society, biology and
inorganic patterns but still inferior to Dynamic Quality." It seems
straight forward enough (unfortunately I can't include the diagram itself in
this post but I'm sure you know where to find it), but the catch is that DQ
seems to appear at both the "top" and "bottom" of the spectrum. Meanwhile,
the "chaos" that Pirsig refers to in Lila--- (i.e. the supremecy of
Inorganic over Chaotic) appears nowhere at all. I found this a bit
confusing. You suggest Pirsig rejects this ultimately view but I can't find
that.
>
>
> ROGER:
>
> DQ is pure experience, it is the stream of quality events prior to
> categorization into levels, patterns or non patterns (randomness or
chaos).
> This interpretation of the MOQ is consistent with modern science (though
> science usually explains it more objectively.) Quantum mechanics is
science's
> most successful theory of the underlying nature of reality. Quantum
reality
> is in essence event based. 'Objective' reality is explained as patterned
and
> unpatterned inter-relationships, with terms like 'particle' and 'wave'
> attached to the emerging patterns. Higher level inorganic or biological
> patterns are explained via complexity. Again though, matter and life are
> extremely complex patterns of events.
>
> In summary, I would suggest a model where DQ is not the 'chaotic level',
but
> where DQ is the underlying pre-patterned/unpatterned stream of quality
> events/experiences/interrelationships. Sq and the four levels are high
> quality, logically consistent interpretations of DQ.
>
> Does this model work for you?
RICK:
Hmmm..."Sq and the four levels are high quality, logically consistent
interpretations of DQ." Logically consistent interpretations...??? Sounds
like Intellectual patterns, no? Is this meant to say that all 4 levels are
"merely" intellectual patterns--- Inorganic Patterns are really Intellectual
Patterns, Bio patterns are Intellectual patterns, Socio patterns are
Intellectual patterns and Intellectual patterns are Intellectual patterns???
This seems confusing and extremely problematic (not to mention slightly
solipsistic) I'm probably misunderstanding your model. Right?
Not to mention I'm still stuck with:
> (2)If the chaotic "level" doesn't equal pure, unpatterned DQ--- then
what's
> the difference???
I hate refering to "Chaos" as a "level" it isn't static (the Quantonics
site's representation of the MoQseems to make this mistake--- but even in
their representation, like Pirsig's, this "Chaos" is identified w/DQ and
seems to sit below the inorganic.---- So what is it? Am I still thinking
too "objectivist"?
Rick
>
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:39 BST