ROGERS IMPERSONATES RICKY RICARDO AND SAYS TO DAVE, "YOU GOTA LOTTA
SPLAININ TO DO".
> -----Original Message-----
> From: RISKYBIZ9@aol.com [SMTP:RISKYBIZ9@aol.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 1999 7:08 AM
> To: moq_discuss@moq.org
> Subject: Re: MD The 99 Percent Solution?
>
> 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 don't find your query irritating at all. its
fun.
>
> [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.
>
>
[David Buchanan] To make distinctions between the three
branches of philosophy may seem like a mere academic exercise, but I
think an accurate picture of these differences will clear up alot of
issues for anyone who cares to think about it. I've checked some
dictionaries and philosophical encyclopedias to make sure the
definitions are NOT just my opinion.
COSMOLOGY is the easiest of the three and hardly needs an
explaination. It is concerned with the origin and structure of the
universe. It belongs to the natural sciences as much as to philosophy.
The change from an earth-centered cosmology to a heliocentric cosmology
was brought about by the discoveries of Copernicus. Our present
cosmological view is "The big bang". Cosmology is physics on a grand
scale. You know. Pirsig's cosmology, in spite of his problems with
subject/object metaphysics, is not very different from the cosmology of
today's scientists. His MOQ does come to the rescue in the hard cases
where SOM begins to break down, like the wave/particle duality problem.
EPISTEMOLOGY is the most slippery branch. To make matters worse,
Pirsig's radical empiricism is far different than standard views. This
branch studies our right to our beliefs, our ability to understand the
world. Epistemology is one of the philosophies of Mind and examines
issues like cognitive processes and perception. I say this is a slippery
branch because there is the problem of using flawed perception to
examine perception itself. Can the disease diagnose itself?Descates and
Kant were certainly engaged in Epistemology. Most of the epistemological
thinking is actually quite rational and normative and not too fuzzy. It
simply asks, "what is the most reasonable and responsble choice I can
make?" and not "How can we know the ultimate truth about reality?". One
can see this attitude in Pirsigs claim that the MOQ isn't the final
truth, it is just a higher quality map for certain territories.
ONTOLOGY is the branch that deals with the categorial structure
of reality. This is nuts and bolts stuff. Aristotle is famous for
putting all existence into categories and for disagreeing with Plato so
completely in his ontological scheme. Both reflected on the relationship
between universals and particulars, but came to wholly different
conclusions. Do universals exist seperately from the particulars which
instantiate them? Plato says yes, universals have a seperate and
permanent existence. Aristotle says no, universals are only an
abstracted ideas about particulars. There is also the matter of
relations between the particulars, such as causality and other "natural
laws". The natural sciences embody implicit ontological schemes, mostly
Aristotelean. The MOQ's ontological scheme replaces the ancient
universals and particulars (subjects and objects) with the four levels
of static patterns and replaces SOM's causality with the creative and
evolutionary migration toward Quality.
The issues involved in these three branches of philosophy can be
used to clarify Pirsig's various ways of refering to Quality. The three
branches support the metaphysics of Quality like three legs on a stool.
There are tangents and even some overlap, but it helps to think of them
seperately.
> 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] Seems like you're accusing Pirsig of being
sloppy of lazy, but I really don't think so. ZMM leaves Quality
undefined, but in Lila he begins to slice it up. His first cut, between
Static and Dynamic, leaves only half of Quality undefined. I'm pretty
sure he intends DQ to remain mysterious "since this whole metphysics had
started with an attempt to explain Indian mysticism" (page 109 of
Bantam's hardback) DQ is the mystical reality, which is, ironically,
not definable by definintion.
> [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 Buchanan] It is all made of Quality, every last bit of
it. The part we can define and know is static, by definition. Think of
all the water in the world as Quality. We'll say all the liquid water is
DQ and we'll say snow, hail, freshwater ice and saltwater ice are the
four levels of static patterns. In that case, it hardly makes sense to
ask what anything is made of. The answer is always simply, "water". Same
with asking if SQ is made of DQ. They're just different states of the
same thing; Quality.
> (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 Buchanan] QEs create and evolve static patterns in a
constant and infinite stream that moves in all directions. How? By
value-ing awareness of Quality and "choosing" it. (this is where
causality used to be) The words value, quality and morality all imply
some kind of awareness. Pirsig chose those words for lots of reasons,
but it's a mistake to be too picky about it. Where he says "patterns of
value" another could say "bundles of information" or "systems of
rightness" and mean the same thing. Pirsig's words carry connotations
that he intends to imply, but that shouldn't distract us from realizing
the general idea in his scheme. The universe is growing more conscious
and static patterns retain what has been learned so far.
> (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?
>
[David Buchanan] DQ becomes SQ through QE. QEs are the
transition between the two bacis forms of Quality. QEs are specific
incidents of creation and/or evolution.
> (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?
>
[David Buchanan] Right, Pirsig's use of the word "Dynamic" is
specifically designed to differentiate it with "static". The freedom
that comes from highly evolved static patterns has a vigorous and
energetic aspect to it, but saying dynamic static patterns is just too
confusing - even if it isn't meant denote that other dynamic with a
capitol "D".
> 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.
>
[David Buchanan] I'm not sure the mistake is Pirsig's. I could
be wrong, but I believe it is a misinterpetation of Pirsing by someone
else, Is there a quote that clearly shows the author's view on this? I'd
say the higher levels have more Quality, but not enhanced DQ because
we're still talking about static patterns, which are never "Dynamic"
with a capitol Q.
> 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?
>
[David Buchanan] I suppose we can never say exactly how
patterns at other levels experience reality, but we can relate to them
in a way that is more profound than just a simple analogous way. We are,
after all, composed of patterns from all four levels. Think of the way
you can feel the weight of a stone in your hand or the sun on your face.
Somehow rocks must "feel" their weight and the stars "know" they're hot.
Thirst and hunger are obviously biological awareness and must be pretty
fundamental to all organic patterns. Peer pressure, moral outrage and
the pride that comes from duty are all examples of social level
awareness. And the intellectual level is the easiest to grasp as we are
operating on that level presently. One can almost feel DQ touching us on
that level. The AH HA! feeling you get when an insight has dawned or
inspiration has breathed new meaning into your thoughts tells you
Quality is near. It feels right when that light bulb goes off. Our
converstion has fired a few bulbs for me and this post is the result, I
hope it shows. Yes, each level has its own "subjective" kind of
awareness, its own reality.
> Thanks for the continuing discussion,
>
> Roger
>
[David Buchanan] THANK YOU !!
>
> 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