Hello everyone
>From: "Marco" <marble@inwind.it>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
>Subject: Re: MD Self, Free/Determinism : a short essay (again... ;)
>Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 18:41:51 +0200
>
>Hi Dan,
>
>thanks for your answer. It has been useful.
Hi Marco
Thank you too.
>
>M
> > >I'm pretty comfortable with "DQ is experience", while I have problems
>with
> > >"Q is experience".
> > >
> > >Correct me if I'm wrong, but if Quality is Reality, it means that
>Quality
> > >is "all there is". So, stating that Quality is experience, is like to
>say
> > >that
> > >experience is all there is. The result is that, according to the MOQ,
>there
> > >should be a Dynamic experience and a static experience.... but, I have
> > >problems
> > >with such a concept. Actually, if experience is all there is, what is
>the
> > >outcome of experience? Experience?
>
>
>Dan
> > I would say the outcome of experience is the same as the outcome of
>life. We
> > all know what that is, I take it. I believe the MOQ is quite clear in
> > stating Quality is experience. Also I believe it is quite clear in
>stating
> > that which has no value does not exist. Quality is all there is. This
>seems
> > very elemental and if we do not agree on such elemental principles I
>fail to
> > see how we can discuss the MOQ in an intelligent fashion.
>
>Marco
>Please, allow me a bunch of clarifications. Actually, I obviously agree on
>"Quality is all there is" and "which has no value does not exist". Only, I
>was
>suggesting that experience (interaction/interevaluation) is the dynamic
>side of
>reality, not the whole reality. You state:
>
>Dan
> > I don't think the MOQ says anything about 2 kinds of experience. If so,
>it
> > would tend to be something like 2 streams of consciousness, which I
>believe
> > Robert Pirsig wishes to avoid.
>
>Marco
>Oh yes, my statement was a "reductio ad absurdum". My thought was:
>Quality, according to the MOQ, has a double nature: D and S, isn't it?
Dan:
I think no.
So, if
>experience and Quality are the same, we should split also experience, just
>like
>Quality. But as I don't grasp the concept of a static experience, I can't
>equate
>Quality and experience.
>
>What I was failing to see, and saw it only after your message, is that
>actually
>"experience" has a double meaning. In facts, as verb "experiencing" is the
>dynamic process of interaction with reality (being part of the flow). As
>noun,
>experience is the static outcome of experiencing (memory).
>
>According to this point, I think we could well be in agreement (see below).
>
>Going on with clarifications....
>
>
>M
> > >On the other hand, assuming that Reality (Quality) is a *sinolos* of DQ
>and
> > >SQ,
> > >and that DQ is experience, is IMO more productive. In this vision,
>real
> > >things *interact* (so, they are DQ) and *exist* (so, they are SQ).
> > >Simultaneously.
>
>Dan
> > I looked up *sinolos* but failed to find it in the online dictionary.
> > I will
> > assume it means that reality is something like a combination of Dynamic
> > Quality and static quality. This is ok as long as we don't try and
>define
> > Dynamic Quality. We may carefully define static quality, however. We do
>that
> > by discovering what's better.
>
>Marco
>yes, sorry. *Synolos* (an not sinolos, as I wrote) is Greek, and it means
>"a
>whole". We know that Aristotle splits reality into matter and form; but
>really, he states that matter and form are coexisting in reality. Reality,
>he
>holds, is a *synolos* of matter and form.... IMO, similarly, Pirsig does
>not
>split reality in DQ and SQ, but, really, states that Reality is a *synolos*
>of
>DQ and SQ.
Dan:
Thank you for the clarification. I know too little of Aristotle to comment
on what he meant by matter and form, but I am uneasy with equating this with
Robert Pirsig's MOQ. It doesn't seem right.
>
>
>And now, let's come to the heart of the reasoning:
>
>M
> > >The process can be seen from two different viewpoints:
> > >
> > >seen from the SQ viewpoint (like the self is), I experience reality
>(DQ+SQ)
> > >by
> > >means of a dynamic interaction: my dynamic side interacts with the
>dynamic
> > >side of the reality I'm experiencing. DQ (the flow) is the sum of all
>the
> > >dynamic sides of all things.
>
>Dan
> > I sense a real effort here at defining Dynamic Quality. The more we try
>and
> > define Dynamic Quality the farther away it gets.
>
>Marco
>Well, I really don't see how my words can constitute a definition. Saying
>that
>DQ is the dynamic side of reality is all but a definition. It's a
>tautology. At
>the contrary IMO your words ("Dynamic Quality is simply what's better.
>That's
>all"), although reasonable, are closer to a definition.
Dan:
When you say "my dynamic side interacts with the dynamic side of the reality
I'm experiencing" it seems to me an effort at defining some part of
yourself. When I say Dynamic Quality is what's better, I don't mean to say I
have a Dynamic side of myself that is better than the static side, nor do I
think that is what the MOQ would say. Quality is experience. Dynamic Quality
is behind that feeling that drives us to what is better.
>
>Anyway, the sense of my statement is this.
>
> as:
>a - there are no two DQs;
>b - Reality is partly static and dynamic
>c - I'm real, thus partly Dynamic and partly static
> ergo:
>my dynamic side is necessarily within the flow. Where else?
>
>If there was a mistake in the above statement it is "DQ is sum of the D
>sides of
>all things",
>but more than a mistake it is a viewpoint, that was in the premise "seen
>from
>the SQ / self viewpoint". Maybe "sum" is not a great term, hope however
>it's
>clear what I'm meaning.
Dan:
>From what I understand, the MOQ does not deny the self. It says it is a
collection of patterns of value capable of responding to Dynamic Quality.
There is no self independent of the patterns. So it would seem to me all we
have is a static quality/self viewpoint.
>
>
>M
> > >seen from the DQ viewpoint, DQ is a flow of experience that originates
> > >static patterns.
>
>Dan
> > If you moved "of experience" behind the word "patterns" then your
>sentence
> > would seem better to me.
>
>
>And here I can agree. According to what I wrote above, I can change my
>whole
>sentence to:
>
><<The process can be seen from two different viewpoints:
>
>*seen from the SQ viewpoint* (like the self is), I interact with reality
>(DQ+SQ): my dynamic side interacts with the dynamic side of the reality I'm
>going to experience. DQ (the flow) is the sum of all the dynamic sides of
>all
>things.
>
>*seen from the DQ viewpoint* DQ is a flow of interactions that originates
>static patterns of value, AKA "the experience(d)" >>.
Dan:
Buddha said the world is made of sorrow. All things are temporal. The MOQ
seems to agree. Suffering is what drives evolution and without evolution
none of us would be sitting here discussing metaphysics. But Dynamic Quality
is not sorrow. The "interaction" between Dynamic Quality and static quality
is the joy we feel when we discover something better.
Thanks again for your thoughts.
Dan
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
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