Hi Roger, Horse, Jonathan, Squad,
I totally agree with Roger when he wrote:
> I guess I am suggesting the usefulness of distinguishing between what is our personal or
> individual metaphysics from what is the MOQ. We can move forward on both fronts, we can
> encourage discussions on both levels, but once in a while we need to fall back on the
> static latching of agreeing on a common interpretation of the MOQ.
I agree: we need common interpretations, as they are static-patterns on which can be built
higher order static-patterns. Without those we will remain swimming in the dynamic pool of divers (lower-order) thoughts-patterns, which of course is fun ... but ... less moral.
Wrapping up DQ:
First, Jonathan writes:
> To define DQ as experience (as some have done) and then divide it is to
> put things backwards. Once you do this, the unity of DQ is shattered,
> and consequently Horse finds his very SQ-like "Contributive DQ" masquerading within.
Of course when you divide the unity of DQ is shattered, just like Quality is shattered when
divided into SQ and DQ. If you don't want this, you better leave methaphisics after you state
quality = reality because it comprises all, but won't give you a better way of explaining things
around you. Lets see how it works out.
Reading the posts I feel there's some agreement on a 'split' of DQ in:
> the personal experience definitions (Roger), or
> DQ from human-perspective (Walter), or
> infant's stimuli (Pirsig), or
> contributive DQ, recognition of the new (Horse)?, or
> direct experiential understanding of DQ (Diana), or
and
> the quantum or event definitions (Roger), or
> the Conceptual Unknown (Pirsig), or
> DQ from over-all perspective (Walter), or
> formative DQ, responsible for creation (Horse)?, or
> the conceptual, objective, classical, whateveryouwantocallit understanding of DQ (Diana)
Horse then explaines this destinction by saying:
> Dynamic Quality is identified with the process of change or movement from being
> (present) to becoming (future). The process of change is a continual process, the
> future continually being formed from the present (Formative DQ). From a human
> point of view the actual moment of change - the event itself - is prior to the
> realization of the event as there is a finite period needed for the intellectualization
> of the event. So from the intellectual perspective the change event is always in the past.
> Recognition of a change event contributes to change in the recognizer and is thus
> also Dynamic Quality (Contributive DQ).
This is very intresting, lets get into it some more
Lets take the following example. You think your grandmother gets old and lonely and you
decide to visit her on a Sunday. A DQ-event for it was 4 years ago you visited. Both you and
your grandmother experience DQ at the moment of the event, and even months later you can
recollect this DQ-event.
Horse writes:
> "The change event contributes to change in the recognizer and is thus also Dynamic Quality"
So it seems there are two DQ-events happening here:
First: the DQ of the event itself and
Second: the DQ that forms a concept of the event in your brain (Horse: intellectualization) and
in your grandmothers' brain.
Lets continue by imagining that from then on you go and visit your grandmother every Sunday!
I think we all will agree that from the human perspective, the DQ of the event decreases. The
fact that this specific event repeates itself in time, augments 'its' SQ, and decreases the
perception of 'its' DQ.
The question is now: is it the DQ of the event that decreases, or the DQ of the concept of
the event in your brain? To answer this question lets imagine your grandmother suffers from
Alzheimers disease. She would probably experience the same DQ every Sunday when you come to visit her ... as for you, after some time it becomes a static pattern with high SQ,
but no DQ.
Concusion:
We can say that in the event itselfm (read: meeting your grandmother), (formative) DQ is
'at work' everytime, while in your brain, for this specific event, the primary forming of a concept
of the event (forming of an IntPoV) requires (formative) DQ too. But if this same event is
repeated, the static (mind)pattern is already formed and DQ is not experienced.
Both are formative DQ, there's no split in DQ, but a split in where and when DQ works!
So back to the definition:
Horse tries to wrap it up with
> Axiom - Quality is Reality
> Quality is identical with Value
> Quality = Value = Reality
> Quality is divisible into two sub-components Dynamic Quality and Static Quality
> Proposal - Dynamic Quality and the process of change are coincident
> Proposal - Dynamic Quality is recognition of a particular change event
> Proposal - Static Quality is that which remains after change
Roger replies
> believe the MOQ is consistent with all the above except on the Second to
> the last point where you say" DQ is RECOGNITION of a particular change event".
> I think a recognition is conditioned reality?..it is sq.
Seeing the above, I propose:
Proposal 1 - Dynamic Quality and the process of change are coincident
Proposal 2 - Dynamic Quality and the process of forming an IntPoV are coincident
An event and the 'intellectualization' of the event are not coincident
Proposal 3 - DQ of proposal 1 = DQ of proposal 2 !
Furthermore just for fun
Proposal 4 - A Static pattern of Value is that which remains after a change event
Proposal 5 - Static Quality is the degree in which a Static Pattern of Value repeates itself in time
I hope I've contributed to the wrapping up and not to the confusion.
A dutch greeting
Walter
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:36 BST