Hi Squonk,
I address most if not all your questions in my essay. It will be clearer
when the final form of it gets posted next week. Then you can see my
diagrams. I address the problem with the schematic on page 252 and how it
contradicts the train analogy. I work out Pirsig's true diagram which is
linear. Neither Classic Quality nor Romantic Quality turns out to be the at
the leading edge of the train! Neither Classic or Romantic Q is the engine
of the train. The mind is! Dynamic is not equivalent to Classic and Static
is not equivalent to Romantic. Everything has a Dynamic - Static aspect to
it. Everything can be viewed from the perspective of Classic and Romantic
Quality. CQ and RQ are human tools to evaluate experience. Dynamic and
Static are properties of things and experience. All should be clearer once
my first two parts of my essay is posted next week sometime. As for
Quality, it is undivided, it is the ground of being and the goal of being.
It is what makes the world something other than random collection of energy
particles. We humans divide up Quality in order to understand it. It is
indivisible running through all levels of reality.
Gary jaron
----- Original Message -----
From: <SQUONKSTAIL@aol.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2002 7:28 AM
Subject: Re: MD Schematic.
> Hi Gary,
> I looked at your essay and found it a bit long!
> Will have to look into it more carefully.
>
> For now i just wish to say this and welcome comments from all MOQers:
>
> 1. The handful of sand analogy.
> The 'world from which' the handful is taken is Quality.
> The handful of sand itself appears to represent Romantic quality.
> Classic quality is a sorting of this handful.
>
> 2. The schematic p. 252.
> Here Romantic quality and Classic quality are split into two worlds.
> Both are derived from Quality.
>
> My concern has been to clarify weather the Romantic/Classical (C/R)
> distinction is dualism in a parallel sense or dualism in a linear sense?
> Does the C/R split exist side by side or does Classic quality emerge or
> condense out of Romantic quality?
> Much that Pirsig says suggests an ambiguity here, but we have:
>
> 3. The Train analogy.
> Quality is the track.
> Romantic quality is the leading edge of the train, Forms capable of
change.
> Classic quality is the engine/coaches.
>
> The entity 'Train' can be viewed as Romantic or Classic.
> Classic is here identified as Static.
> Romantic is identified as Dynamic.
>
> Quality is left alone but we are left in little doubt as to it being the
> source of both Static and Dynamic.
>
> Harmonising these analogies we have:
>
> 1. Quality. Track. World.
> 2. Romantic. Leading surface. Handful.
> 3. Classic. Engine/coaches. Sorting.
>
> This does not quite fit in my view, but i do not feel it should be
expected
> to either.
> Rather like Plato's three similes in his Republic, it is not at all
> straightforwardly a matter of harmonising elements within each of them.
>
> However, Romantic quality in the Train analogy is more than sense
perception?
> Here, the leading edge selects from infinite possibility the best
hypothesis
> for the mathematician (Poincare), and the best place to put the word for
the
> artist (Phaedrus)?
> Formula and books are static.
> Mathematicians and Rhetoricians are Dynamic.
>
> I feel if we follow this we have to come to a point where visual and aural
> experiences would have to be regarded as epistemic independent of human
> observers; public memory.
> Objects of art may be considered to be just as much a part of memory as
one's
> shopping list?
> Just because the leading edge deposits static knowledge in individuals,
this
> may not exclude statues, symphonies, novels, RAM's and other social memory
> from Classic quality.
> After all, even mechanics consult the workshop manual now and again?
> In this case, Classic quality has to some extent left the human, which
would
> appear to require a new definition of human in a technological society?
>
> Romantic quality, the 'form capable of change'' appears to be silting up
> reality with entities that exist longer than individual humans. For this
> reason, i feel confused about the difference between Quality and Romantic
> quality, for one may wish to ask the question, 'If that which is
responding
> to Quality is different from Quality and Classic quality, and if Classic
> quality exists beyond humans in social artefacts, can Romantic quality
also
> exist beyond humans and still respond to Quality?
>
> All the best,
> Squonk.
>
>
> 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 - 16:02:16 BST