>You and Denis see Q-intellect as the end of the
> static line ...and anything beyond as "visionary"
>(mystical). While Rob and I (at least) see the Q-idea
> itself as another static development.
Actually, I agree with BOTH of you. It's like Quantum
physics: it depends on HOW I choose to perceive. Denis
is CORRECT scholastically, academically. Or as I refer
to it he is correct in the realm of the "say" or "sq".
You and Rob are correct dynamically, sensically. You
are correct in the realm of the "show" or "DQ." The
way we perceive determines what we shall see. So we're
fighting over the First split in his metaphysics: DQ
vs. sq. We need a new logic: paraconsistent logic.
It's a logic where 2 contradictory things can be true
at the same time. The logic of "quality" for me would
be paraconsistent logic.
As for language, it's an important issue. Language is
a TOOL, and this tool is dependent on "logic" or as I
might say it is "logocentric." Thus, language
privileges "logic" and "logic" lends it's support to
SOM. I don't think Denis is saying "everything is
logic" he is just saying that language is a tool that
we need to communicate but the tool biases us in
certain ways. It biases us towards SOM. My example
with the kid 'shows' how kids have a "dynamic
language" (they are "infants" that is "without
speech") and aspects of DQ expresses itself in
"errors" of the kid in the language. If you have a
paraconsistent logic, you can show how the kid can be
'right' and 'wrong' depending on how you look at it.
Thus, I have called for a new language: a language of
DQ. You can then say [DQ] Bo is right [\DQ] and [/sq]
Denis is right [/sq] about the 5th level.
>> I SENSE the meaning that Bo and you are getting at,
>> and it is legitimate but difficult to discuss
>> because it uses dynamic quality in its expression.
>
> I'm not sure what 'dynamic' in this context
> implies. I simply see my
> position as the right one ...don't we all?
That's why I BELIEVE in paraconsistent logic. How can
you and Denis be the kings of the SAME hill?
"Dynamic" means the "show" realm of Pirsig, the
"certainty" of experience. Here's an example: I went
to a Tango party and a woman asked me who my teacher
was. If you don't know about Tango culture, "who" your
teacher is is very important. Tango is very hoity
toity. Anyway, she didn't care who my teacher actually
was. The point of her question was to "set herself up"
to tell me who HER teacher was. She spends about $70 a
lesson on him I'm sure and wanted to "show" me that.
She was "doing" with her language, she didn't care
about the "who my teacher was", though there is an
answer to the question. So at the same time 2 things
are happening: a dynamic use of language (setting me
up to ask who her teacher is) and a static use of
language (answering the question). They happen at the
same time, and neither one is more true than the
other.
> but when I try to catch him in the
> "everything-is- language" corner he evades that, and
> when I try to catch him in the "language-about-
> value" corner he eels out of that too. So I am at a
> loss to understand what his position is and at that
> point his exquisite wring doesn't help.
I hope my "paraconsistent" logic explains your
frustration. [sq] everything is language [/sq] and
[dq] language about value [\dq] happen at the same
time. It is an "eel" until you open up to a
paraconsistent logic.
> My opinion is that the first SOM-MoQ
> transition of Pheadrus DID
> require a vision, but for us - afterwards - it
> requires no special talents.
There is an important distinction here: Vision with a
big V is the epiphany vision. You get some insight for
the first time. That would be the "Phaedrus vision.
There is also "vision" with a small v that happens all
the time. The tango lady uses "vision" in her
language: she expresses a behavior in her use of
language. So when I use "vision" I am talking about
that "kind" of vision, or the realm of the "show".
That's why I call it "show" because you can't speak
about it. It's a "form of life".
>Then you ask why a small kid seems to >perceive
"visionary value" before he/she is able to >perceive
"logic value"? Is that about it?
It's seems kids have "DQ" to begin with and THEN they
get the static latching mechanism of language. So if
EVOLUTION is a big thing for Pirsig, why give us
language? I guess his answer would be "DQ" with a
static latch mechanism is better than one without.
That's really my whole point with that.
Thanks for your moments of static latching.
Angus
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
http://greetings.yahoo.com
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 - 16:01:42 BST