RATIONAL ROGER TRIES TO CONTINUE THE PURSUIT
OF UNDERSTANDING WITH DAVID
David, I hope I don't irritate you, but I want to get you to clarify much of
your post. I cut and pasted , so forgive any distortions of your intent.
[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.....
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.)
(Roger):
Great angle! Let me approach it cautiously though. I am a product of
California Public Schools, so I better bring the conversation down to my
level. As I understand the metaphysical terms, we are referring to the nature
of the universe, the nature of thought, and the nature of being. Please
correct me and help me along through any limitations in my definitions though.
I would agree that the nature of the universe, thought and being can be
explained by the Experience definition. But the "evolving to" definition
doesn't fit within my understanding of either term...Experience or Ontology.
Help me out though........As for the "unmeasured phenomenal object", this
seems like a funky twist of the experience issue too.
You know what I sometimes suspect Pirsig has done? That he has accidentally
grouped anything which is uncertain, free, new , or undefined into DQ. DQ
might be all of these, but does it follow that everything that is one of these
is DQ?
[David Buchanan]:
Static quality is left in the wake of Dynamic experience.
(ROGER):
Does this mean it is made of DQ, or from DQ? Or is it different?
(David):
DQ creates and discovers what is good, what is of value, what is moral and
sort of
locks it in.
(Roger):
How does it create and discover? How does it lock in?
(DAVID):
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.
(ROGER):
I thought DQ was awareness? Are you saying sq is a manifested QE?
(ROGER WROTE):
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.
(David responded):
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.
(Roger):
Why? Because "dynamic" is sole property of DQ, or because of the potential
confusion by using the same term "dynamic" in both descriptions?
As for your final fascinating observation that Pirsig may mistakingly equate
higher levels with enhanced DQ, why do you think he makes what you see is a
mistake? I suggest it could be that the freedom is so great in the higher
levels that any static latching is more pronounced. You know, "a mind is a
terrible thing to waste" and all.
As a related question to the above, does the experience of thinking differ in
degree or kind from social or biological or subatomic experience? How?
Thanks for the continuing discussion,
Roger
PS I Still need to get to Glove's latest, Walter's returning post, and your
latest, David......
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