Yay Squonks!
Jeremy Kirouac
----- Original Message -----
From: <SQUONKSTAIL@aol.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 7:07 PM
Subject: Re: MD Self, Free/Determinism : a short essay (again... ;)
> Multiplying DQ is exactly what Aristotle did.
> Not a good move boys, not a good move.
>
> Even Aristotle follows Plato in the final analysis: the Good is
> undifferentiated.
> When ARE you guys going to feel the penny drop?
>
>
> All the best,
> Squonk.
>
> In a message dated 8/8/01 1:02:19 AM GMT Daylight Time,
> gmbbradford@netscape.net writes:
>
> << Subj: RE: Re: MD Self, Free/Determinism : a short essay (again...
;)
> Date: 8/8/01 1:02:19 AM GMT Daylight Time
> From: gmbbradford@netscape.net
> Sender: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
> Reply-to: moq_discuss@moq.org
> To: denis.poisson@ideliance.com ("Denis Poisson"), moq_discuss@moq.org
>
> John B. and Denis and all,
>
> DENIS:
> "Quality is still undefinable, and the Universe non-mechanical by
nature.
> It
> still escapes the intellectual nets we're trying to wrap around it.
> Pirsig's
> definition still stands : "We are determined when we follow SQ, and
Free
> when we follow DQ.""
>
> The exact quote is:
>
> PIRSIG, Ch. 12
> In the Metaphysics of Quality this dilemma [free will vs. determinism]
> doesn't come up. To the extent that one's behavior is controlled by
> static
> patterns of quality it is without choice. But to the extent that one
> follows Dynamic Quality, which is undefinable, one's behavior is free.
>
> It's a hollow "solution" to the free will/determinism problem.
> All he's done is recast a nearly identical problem in MOQ terms. Now the
> question becomes, "When am I free to follow the path of DQ and when am I
> constrained to follow static patterns of quality?"
>
> JOHN B:
> Ummm. Sounds like the chatechism to me. Pirsig's first cut fails, in my
> opinion, right in his prime example of the song on the radio.
> It is simply wrong in most cases to suggest that dynamic equals novel
> with music!
>
> Yes, or that dynamic things are necessarily perceived as having the
*most*
> quality. It's also my experience that a song will peak some time after
> its first listen, when it's well on its way to being staticly latched.
>
> JOHN B:
> I will go a step further. DQ is a myth.
>
> I think so, too. I guess this is the racy part Denis snipped.
>
> JOHN B:
> Quite commonly [DQ] is equated with
> novelty, which is a nonsense... this is so far from the incisive
> first cut he sought that it is laughable. DQ is many things, of
different
> kinds; not one thing as Pirsig would have us believe.
>
> Right. As examples of DQ, Pirsig offers many different kinds. There's
> DQ in a new song, in the excitement of being in a hurricane, in looking
> at your hand after surviving a heart attack, in the religious experience
> of peyote, in the driving force of evolution, in the intuition of
> scientific hypotheses, in all the experiences of a new-born, in the
> interaction of carbon atoms in the formation of life, and the pain of a
> hot stove on your butt.
>
> In more general terms, DQ is associated with "events" having to do
> with freedom, novelty, change, and subjective experiences. In
> even more sweeping terms, DQ is attributed to just about
> anything for which explanations involving SQ do not exist
> or do not do it justice (such as substance-based explanations
> of consciousness). In short, DQ is ascribed to all that is
> mysterious, and called an explanation.
>
> None of these, however, prove, or to my way of thinking, even suggest,
> that DQ exists as an objective phenomena. Quality, despite all the talk
> around here, seems very much to be in the eye of the beholder. Further,
> arguments that the self is an illusion and reality is a dynamic, flowing
> continuum are unsubstantiated and these beliefs are products of
> Eastern dogma, liberal interpretations of drug or meditative experiences,
> and blissful doses of self-deceit. And I don't mean to offend.
> I'm actually very sympathetic to self-deceit.
>
> JOHN B:
> Value is relative when it is applied to the social and intellectual
> realms, and arguably not so in the biological realm. And I still fail
> to grasp how value impinges on the inorganic realm at all. I think it's
> just an imposition for the sake of theoretical niceness.
>
> Well I completely agree, and "theoretical niceness" is a nice way to
> put it. The universality of value gives it the ring of a good
> scientific theory, like the universality of gravitation and the 2nd
> Law of Thermodynamics. It's enough to keep any INTP personality type
> enthralled, at least for four or five listens :)
> Glenn
> >>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
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 - 16:01:27 BST