Dear Elephant,
I had the temptation to stay still without any answer, as it is clear
that we are on opposite positions (especially on what it means "static"
and "Dynamic") and it seems that either I don't understand you or you
don't understand me (probably both, but I have the excuse I'm not
English:-) ).
However....
a.) You state that Pirsig states that "it is possible for us to *obtain*
and *pursue* and *have* both DQ and SQ simultaneously, but that is not
the same thing as anything *being* both dynamic and static
simultaneously". I don't think so, mainly because we can't *have*
quality. We are made of Quality. Moreover, I state that "to be dynamic"
has nothing to do with "to have DQ" (see below).
b.) About the beauty of Diesel Oil.... the Latins used to say "De
gustibus non est disputandum"... I don't think it is possible to
approach Diesel Oil with the right frame of mind, so that every static
intellectual concept can be dissolved (I hope at least we agree here, or
do you love Diesel Oil so much to drink it that every morning with eggs
and bacon?). So IMO Diesel Oil is not beautiful. But also, even marble
seems to be a stupid rock.... then Michelangelo came.
c) You rightly state that 'Seagull' is a conceptual tool for
interpreting the world. Unless you use the term Seagull also for dogs
and cats, IMO we are using this term to interpret a small portion of
world. It's not a case that this small portion of world uses to fly over
the sea, to eat fishes and produce eggs. I call 'Seagull' these (and
others) REAL and STATIC characteristics...
IMO "outside there" there are really static characteristics like these,
and not only a dynamic continuum. Right, we create static concepts when
we try to interpret the world.... but static concepts work well just
because the world is (also) made of real static characteristics.
d) You say that your worry is about my thought of language as "*just* a
natural
phenomenon", and you are interested to something else: the essence of
language, its "role in getting that reality set up as a world of objects
in the first place". You state that "language comes before all natural
phenomenon, and that its appearance as a natural phenomenon is really a
kind of illusion, like the idea that you can catch yourself seeing by
looking in the mirror".
I agree that language comes before all intellectual reality. But
language itself comes after sensation. And sensation comes after the
experience of Reality.I've never thought that it is possible to catch
myself in the mirror, and I've never thought I can catch reality by
language.
I'm stating that the "myself" I see in the mirror (like the "reality" I
represent with language) is real. (Actually, its vision can convince me
that I'm getting old, so I must stop playing football every Tuesday
evening... it is for me a proof that the vision is not merely a copy of
reality, it is real!).
I'm stating that reality "out there" is static and dynamic, if the MOQ
view is correct. And also I state that the representation I create by
means of language goes "out there" just in the moment I share it with
others. Actually I can put it on a book, and it will last after my
death.
e) You state that the Quality Event is an object. I don't think so. Of
course, when we talk of a Quality Event, we rebuild a static
intellectual concept. But the real event came before any subject and
object. It creates the subject and the object.
f) I've never said that Dynamic Quality is evolution, nor that it is a
series of static events. The possibility of evolution that is inherent
in every real entity is not DQ. The possibility of evolution is the
capacity of real entities to switch off some static filters so that DQ
will come in. This is the story of the Brujo: he has been able to
switch off some static social filter, so he made possible for his
culture to evolve. Only in this sense I say that entities are dynamic.
To say that DQ is dynamic is IMO impossible. DQ is DQ. I can't accept
your argument of the greyness of the horse; actually I say that entities
are dynamic, that is to say they have dynamism (capacity to encounter
DQ), and not that they have DQ; dynamism and DQ are not the same.
It is clear the huge distance between us. I think it is difficult for
you to convince me (as well for me to convince you); however, if you
want to try, please offer some original quote from Pirsig. Especially
those where you can find that:
- it is possible for us to *have* DQ and/or SQ.
- the *essence* of language, or whatever else, is different from it as
natural phenomenon.
- language comes before all natural phenomenon
- the quality event is an object
My impression , sorry to state this baldly, is that you have read Lila
without switching off enough intellectual static filters. You are trying
to put your experience of the MOQ within too many preexisting patterns.
However, surely we are both wrong
Ciao.
Marco.
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 - 16:01:05 BST