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: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 13:20:41 +0200
>
>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.
Hi Marco
Perhaps it would help if you gave me a real world analogy of what a Dynamic
viewpoint is.
>
> > 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!
Good point.
>
>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*....).
Perhaps insisting on keeping Dynamic Quality concept-free does make it seem
like Dynamic Quality is "outside" but that is not what I mean at all.
Concepts arise Dynamically. There is no dualism, nor can Dynamic Quality be
"inside" or "outside" of static quality. Those are concepts pertaining to
static quality patterns of value.
>
>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.
This seems confusing to me. A rock does not "behave" like a plant and a
plant does not "behave" like a government yet they are all concepts,
otherwise, what are they?
>
> > 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.
It seems doubtful we will ever agree on a Dynamic experience for there is no
way to say what that experience is.
>
>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.
I seem to know when something is better than something else, though I
suspect that's not always the case. Most often it is that which I am more
comfortable with that seems better. If someone attempts to show me a better
way to do something than the way I am used to doing it, I don't always see
it as being better. But maybe I'll try it their way, just out of curiosity.
And after I try it a few times, suddenly I cannot imagine going back to the
old way of doing it. Now, is it truly that their way is better? or have I
simply reached another comfort level?
Thank you for sharing 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 - 16:01:28 BST