Roger and all: I've taken the liberty to delete everything but the bare
bones of your excellent post. Laying it all out so clearly makes it easy
to read, understand and respond. Disagreement is fun and productive, but
misunderstanding and confusion are a drag. Thanks for the clarity. Even
if I disagree, at least I can understand your view. That's 99 percent of
the solution to any problem.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: RISKYBIZ9@aol.com [SMTP:RISKYBIZ9@aol.com]
> Sent: Sunday, March 14, 1999 2:55 PM
> To: moq_discuss@moq.org
> Subject: Re: MD The 99 Percent Solution?
>
> ROGER RESPONDS TO INPUT ON THE EXTENSION/CRITIQUE
> OF THE MOQ
>
> Thanks to all those that responded. Have some fun and accompany me on
> a
> mental journey into the unknown. The road back is well lit!
>
> Below are my concerns:
>
> A) Dynamic quality has been overextended. The "source of all things,"
> "direct
> experience," "the unmeasured phenomenal object," and "that which all
> is
> evolving to"is overly broad. Combining the first and last definition,
> we have
> " the source of all things which things evolve to." What? Do not get
> me wrong,
> I agree with all the concepts. The weakness is to give these all
> these
> concepts the same term without clarification. In my opinion, his "
> evolving
> toward " definition was the fundamental overextension. This concept
> needs
> clarity.
>
[David Buchanan] I see what you're getting at with the various
descriptions of DQ, but it only seems too broad because metaphysics
itself it so broad. There are at least three branches of philsophy
within metaphysics; cosmology, epistemology and ontology. The
definitions correspond to the meaning of DQ in each of those contexts.
To say DQ is "the source of all things" is a cosmological claim. To say
DQ is the "primary empirical reality" or "direct experience" is an
epistemological position. To say DQ is "that which all is evoloving
toward" is an ontological description. Together, these three definitions
constitute a total metaphysical description of DQ.
I hardly know what to say about the "unmeasured phenomenal
object". Its a special case because it comes from the paper instead of
the books. It isn't contradictory so much as very specific. DQ seems to
reveal itself in advanced physics, which can now penetrate deeply into
the mysteries of inorganic patterns of value and see that there's no
there there. The subatomic "unmeasured phenomenal object" seems to
exist on the cusp of reality. I t emerges out of the undifferentiated
aesthetic continuum and becomes a static pattern only in some kind of
response. This definition of DQ relates the general principles of the
MOQ to a specific case in physics.
> B) Quality, value, morality, direct experience, awareness, dynamic
> quality and
> the quality event are confusing. Let's use one term throughout and
> clarify
> that the other terms are either synonyms or special cases of the
> agreed on
> term.
>
[David Buchanan] Any attempt to sort these terms out would only
be a recap of what I've already said about the firsrt set of terms. It
the same thing, different contexxts.
> C) The only other fundamental difference in my model was that I tried
> to
> explain the emergence of the levels. Complexity theory and the MOQ
> are
> totally complementary. Together they explain reality. This add-on
> can easily
> be deleted.
>
[David Buchanan] The add-on stuff is great and I agree that
complexity theory,,, as well as the Nishida and lots of other add-ons.
Keep it flowing!
> Back to David's concerns, to show that this is really the MOQ, I have
> taken my
> original model and reinserted the familiar terms and dropped any
> reference to
> complexity:
>
> 1) DQ is Quality
>
[David Buchanan] DQ is the creator of all experience, the
primary empirical reality and the goal of nature's evolution. (Pirsig's
three legged definition slightly rephrased.)
>
> 2) There can be patterns of dynamic quality. This is static quality.
> (Note
> that I am not stating dynamic quality is patterned, it isn't) Static
> quality
> is patterns of quality.
>
[David Buchanan] This second point seems contradictory? Static
quality is left in the wake of Dynamic experience. DQ creates and
discovers what is good, waht is of value, what is moral and sort of
locks it in. Static patterns of Quality preserve what DQ has created
through awareness. The quality event manifests itself as a static
pattern as way for reality to latch on to the Good it has found in
itself.
> 3) There are four distinct categories of static quality. Each level
> emerges
> from its underlying level. Each level has more freedom and higher
> dynamic
> quality than that from which it emerges.
>
I see no major problem with your third point, but I'd say only
"higher quality" rather than "higher dynamic quality" to avoid any
confusion of static patterns with DQ itself.
> 4) Patterns of value are evolving toward enhanced dynamic freedom, or
> higher
> quality.
>
[David Buchanan] Same deal here. I'd strike the word dynamic and
just say enhanced freedom.
> 5) Quality is All.
>
[David Buchanan] The entire universe is composed of Dynamic
Quality and the static patterns it creates. As Emerson said, "Nature is
mind, precipitated"
> Please let me know what, if anything, above differs from the MOQ.
> Also,
> please let me know if you agree with my three concerns with the MOQ.
>
[David Buchanan] I've already tried to make the case in
previous posts that understanding mysticism is crucial for a proper
understanding of the MOQ. I think this is even more crucial for a proper
understand of DQ. On page 377 of the Bantam hardback edition, Pirsig
says "..once...DQ is identified with religious mysticism it produces an
avalanche of information as to what DQ is."
Investigation into mysticism is explicitly endorsed by the
author as a means to understanding his prime concept, Dynamic Quality.
And yet so many self-described MOQ lovers dismiss or ignore it? I'll bet
you dollar to doughnuts that investigation into Phenomenology and
Epistemology would shed a lot of light too.
My last point will take me out on a limb. You (Roger) repeatedly
say that the higher level patterns have more dynamic quality. I guess
its just intuition, but it seems incorrect to me. Think of the way
inorganic patterns emerge out of chaos, the way the "unmeasured
phenomenal object" emerges out of the undifferentiated (unpatterned)
aesthetic (quality) continuum. Doesn't it seem like the lowest level is
most directly in contact with DQ? Patterns at that level respond only to
other inorganic patterns and DQ itself. The biological level patterns
rest upon the already established inorganic patterns. Inorganic patterns
are the context for biological patterns, which makes them one step
removed, so to speak. Aren't the social and intellectual levels two and
three steps removed in the same way? I realize that DQ permeates through
all the patterns at all the levels and is the cause of their continued
evolution. It seems that the higher levels are "distracted" from DQ by
the need to deal with all those patterns. We, as the only known example
of patterns from all the levels, are distracted by our intellectual
patterns. I sort of envy dogs because I imagine they are always "in the
zone", they're naturally buddhist because they have no intellect to
distract them. I'm being a little silly, but maybe you now what I mean.
Aren't sunflowers totally blissed out all the time? The moon is at
peace.
Wet sloppy kisses, David B
> MOQ Homepage - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MOQ Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:54 BST