Hi Dan
> Thank you for your reply.
thanks to you too!
> If Quality has a double nature and experience is
> Quality, then as you say, it seems that experience also has a double nature.
> I don't think that is quite right.
:-(
> A Dynamic "experience" only becomes an
> experience upon reflection. I think in one of his letters to Anthony McWatt
> (in the archives), Robert Pirsig says the first "cut" of Quality is change.
> Then come concepts of before and after.
I agree. Let me use once again the "double viewpoint" vision. Seen from the static viewpoint, the first cut in reality is between what changes (reflection of DQ in action) and what doesn't change (what's not influenced by DQ). Seen from the (hypothetical) DQ viewpoint, DQ in action modifies part of the static reality.
> It is here that the concepts you
> name exist...they are "all there is," static quality. Dynamic Quality must
> be kept concept-free.
But not the contrary. Concepts must not be kept DQ-free!
So, you also are with Elephant and Roger, I guess, assuming that static quality is the realm of concepts. I don't think so. Even if I can't be sure, I find more probable and in agreement with common experience that there is something of static even out of the realm of concepts, than the contrary. In your vision, DQ becomes something of completely transcendent, and you build IMO a perfect dualism. Static concepts on one side, and a flowing DQ outside (let me know which of the two is in your opinion *real*....).
At the contrary, I think that DQ is immanent in reality, just like SQ, and that even concepts are part of the flow. Concepts are sort of alive and changing, according to the same behavior of rocks, plants and governments. And rocks, plants and governments are not merely concepts.
> When you say Quality has a double nature, it seems as
> if you've turned it into some kind of object that has Dynamic and static
> properties. I know that is not what you mean to do though. Is it?
When I
say that, I'm rejecting the idea that reality is static, and that the MOQer's
God, DQ, is not of this universe. You see, when we want to describe something,
one possibility is to go out of the frame. Sadly, it is not possible to go out
from universe to describe how it works. But there's another possibility to
investigate reality: try different viewpoints, like we can do by means of
trigonometry to calculate the Moon-Earth distance. That's why I've described the
process of experience from two different viewpoints.
Am I trying to define DQ? I don't think so. I'm only trying to describe (that is
not defining) how it works within the reality I know.
Thanks again,
Marco
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 - 16:01:28 BST