ROGER EXTENDS A SUMMARY AND A CHALLENGE TO THE GROUP
To Glove, Walter and David:
I started out with a statement that Pirsig's terms were ambiguous, overbroad,
and needed clarity, and that the MOQ could benefit from improved explanations
on how the higher levels emerge. I will now summarize how I see each of you
has defined or explained three key topics:
DQ, the Quality Event, and the "evolving Toward" aspect of DQ. I will also
resubmit my initial definitions.
**********************************************
DQ
Glove started with a scientific version of DQ and wrote:
>>>>>>The Quality Event is the "measured phenomenal
object" lying inside the dotted circle of Pirsig's diagram, while Dynamic
Quality could be said to be the "unmeasured phenomenal object" lying outside
the dotted circle. However, it must also be recognized that Dynamic Quality
also lies within the circle as well. It is simply our unambiguously held
agreements that cause us to ignore it altogether, and shove it, so to speak,
completely out of the picture so that no ambiguity remains
in our minds.>>>>>>
Walter then introduced the "split DQ problem":
<<<<<Now I see more clearly than ever that my struggle with DQ is mainly based
on the difference in these two perspectives:
- exploring DQ from the more conceptual (universal) perspective.
- exploring DQ from the human-perspective (using empirical data from my own
experience /
awareness of DQ)The process of Formative DQ being the source of all, is
reversed in the human experience of DQ (Contributive DQ). >>>>>>>>
Glove responded to this with::
>>>>I cannot help but feel that there is something wrong with this prospective
of universal and human experience from the Metaphysics of Quality
standpoint. If we assume there is a universal prospective, we must also
assume that it exists as an independently existing "something", perhaps like
an object "out there" that experiences quite independently from the
subjective "us" as humans. Isn't this just a continuation of subject/object
metaphysics? Seems so to me...>>>>>>>>>
AND he also wrote::
>>>>>>The notion of an independently
existing reality apart from our own experience is the essence of
subject-object thinking, in my opinion, and is also a link-pin between
Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality and Bohr's complementarity. Neither philosophy
subscribes to an independently existing reality apart from experience.>>>>
This cut-n-paste reveals why I believe DQ is best represented with the term
"Direct Experience." I agree that any DQ separate from pre-conceptualized
experience is SOM duality. This experience covers all 3 branches of
Metaphysics. I am not being solipsistic either, because I do not suggest the
experience is internal. Experience creates the internal/external
subject/object split.
******************************************************
THE QUALITY EVENT
GLOVE again batted first defining the QE :
>>>>>>The Quality Event is not an ambiguous event, but rather it is a static,
unambiguous communication. The Quality Event may be derived from Dynamic
Quality but it is no longer ambiguous Dynamic Quality. Unambiguous
agreements have "changed" it into a concept.>>>>>>>
And he added:
>>>>>>The Quality Event is the "measured phenomenal
object" lying inside the dotted circle of Pirsig's diagram, while Dynamic
Quality could be said to be the "unmeasured phenomenal object" lying outside
the dotted circle.>>>>>>>
DAVID Responded as follows:
>>>>>>>When the physicists look at atoms very closely, they see that
they exists in a state of potential reality. You could say that the
particles and waves form out of an unpatterned potentiality. Particles
and waves emerge out of the Undifferentiated aesthetic continuum, which
can also be called the unpatterned quality continuum or simply DQ. They
exists in a state that allows them to "snap" into existence as either a
particle or a wave, where previously they were neither. That is how a
Quality Event occurs on the inorganic level.>>>>>>>
And ended with:
>>>>>>I almost agree with your claim that "The
Quality Event is the measured phenomenal object...". But I think its
more accurate to say the Quality Event creates the phenomeanl object.
Quality Events create all static patterns, at all the levels, all the
time.>>>>>>
I agree with the first quote of Glove, but also with David's clarification on
the second. Pirsig states that DQ is a stream of quality events, or in my
terms from earlier above, "a stream of experience."
***************************************************
EVOLVING
GLOVE starts us off with:
>>>>>>:From my ponderings on this, it is my opinion that Dynamic Quality
cannot be
said to evolve. It is the static quality patterns of value making up our
reality that evolve towards Dynamic Quality, perhaps, but our concept of
evolution is a static quality pattern of value in itself, as all concepts
are. >>>>>>
WALTER ponders it too, bringing in the related topic on how/why do the levels
evolve?:
>>>>>This is exactly why I feel there's something missing. WHAT is it that
makes simple systems evolve into complex systems, guys? There's
coincidence/chance involved and interaction and connectedness too, but these
aren't the very reason for the direction we see towards more complex patterns.
What is it!!??>>>>>>>
DAVID throws in a response to try to explain complexity and the eternal
question of "where does GOO come from":
>>>>>>>> The simple structures only have so many choices as to how
they're going to be. They have limited freedom. As complexity increases
in the static patterns, they have more freedom, more choices about how
they are going to "be". These basic inorganic structures show us how the
whole universe takes shape and evolves. A trillion, billion, gazillion
Quality Events later and you've got yourself a whole universe with stars
and galaxies and primordial goo >>>>>>>>
AND in response to Glove, David writes:
>>>>>>>>>I think
you're mostly correct in saying "It is the static patterns...that evolve
towards DQ". I guess I'd prefer to say that the static patterns are
evolving toward greater freedom. DQ drives the whole thing thru a
infinite series of Quality Events which create the patterns we think of
as the phenomenal universe, the world of things. But all the static
patterns are just a kind of crystalized memory of what has been
discovered to have Quality. The evolution of the universe is DQ filling
itself with the static awareness of the Good. Static patterns keep what
has value, but the whole thing is dancing and playing in an infinite
ocean of DQ.>>>>>>>>
I agree that it is patterns which evolve (which is why the term static is
confusing), and that what they evolve to is more freedom . Freedom of what?
FREEDOM OF EXPERIENCE.
In this light, DQ is experience, and it is the patterns which evolve toward
freedom of experience. By the way, I am not too sure of the "discover quality"
aspect of David's post. It seems too fuzzy. I would say that the patterns
are "patterns of experience" that have crystalized into abstract reality.
Below is my original post on 3/13:
<<
1) Experience is Quality
2) Quality/experience is all
3) Experience creates patterns (InorgPOV's). These are patterns of
experience.
4) Experience causes the patterns to become more complex (BPOV's)
5) Pattern complexity leads to higher quality experience (biological
experience)
6) Higher quality experience leads to even more complex patterns (S and I
POV's)
7) This leads to higher quality experience.....(social and intellectual
experience)
8) Pattern complexity is defined as a pattern which is more dynamic, which
has
more freedom, more options, more potential. (It does not necessarily mean
more
complicated)
9) Pattern complexity is quality
>>
Obviously I selectively chose which quotes to use to reinforce my points, so
please forgive me. I encourage each of you to now answer the following same
questions IN YOUR OWN WORDS OF CHOICE:
Q1) Define DQ as succinctly as possible
Q2) Define the QE, in terms of your preceding definition if possible
Q3) Define sq, in terms of the above two def's if possible
Q4) Explain how the levels emerge in the above terms
Q5) Explain what "all is evolving toward" in your preceding terms
I really see us approaching clarity, even if we never do reach perfect
harmony!
Goo is a noun!
Roger
PS Where are you Horse?
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