Hello everyone
I really enjoyed reading everyone's answers to Rogers questions and although
I have comments brewing about the others answers, I was afraid I would
complicate things by trying to address them all here. I've limited myself to
just my own answers and Rogers answers with this email. I'll try and address
the others with subsequent ones as time permits.
>ROGER PROBES AND REPLIES TO THE 5 QUESTIONS
>
>Pardon me in advance for my flip replies. I asked for brevity , but very
few
>of the answers IMHO explained enough. I have added some questions to try to
>pry some more specificity from each of you. But please, I am familiar with
>the MOQ, so do not respond in MOQisms..... What are the QE,DQ,sq and
quality,
>in clear, every day, understandable terms? How are they connected ? How do
>they differ?
>
>At the end, I have listed my answers....please be equally inquisitive....Am
I
>explaining myself?
>
>*****************************
>
>******************************************************
>Glove wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>
>1. Dynamic Quality cannot be defined, for definition requires boundaries.
>Dynamic Quality creates and destroys static patterns of value.
>2. The Quality Event occurs continuously as the observer defines reality.
>3. Static quality patterns of value are anything the observer
defines.>>>>>>>
>
>How does DQ create and destroy?
Glove:
At this point I have no idea whatsoever.
> What if there are no observers?
Glove:
Since experience is Quality, without experience there is no Quality. Without
an observer there would be nothing to value. That isn't to say there
wouldn't be any "thing" there, but because of Pirsig's principle that states
that a thing that has no value doesn't exist, we are prohibited from saying
that anything exists without an observer.
> Must
>observers
>be sentient?
Glove:
The problem with this question is the word "sentient". We are forced to
define sentience as pertaining to our humanity and project it onto the rest
of our reality because that is how we perceive our reality. I would say no,
observers are not required to be sentient, but that is only based on what I
happen to agree is sentient in the first place. However, one could just as
easily answer yes, observers must be sentient, and probably produce an
equally compelling argument to support their case. I don't think there is a
way to answer this question properly.
>
>
>>>>>>4. The levels emerge with recognition.>>>>>>
>
>Were they always there waiting to be recognized?
Glove:
Looking at the connotations behind "always" I find this is an impossible
question to answer, since it requires using both a universally Dynamic point
of view with a locally static point of view simultaneously. We are
prohibited from doing so by my understanding of the Metaphysics of Quality.
>How did they get where they
>are?
Glove:
How do we get where we are? might be a better question to ask. I am not sure
anyone has an answer to that. I don't.
>
>>>>>>5. From a static quality point of view, all is evolving towards
greater
>recognition/complexity. From a Dynamic Quality point of view, there is no
>evolution. All is just this. These two points of view cannot be used
>simultaneously. If static quality is considered, Dynamic Quality must be
>completely ignored. If Dynamic Quality is considered, static quality must
be
>completely ignored.>>>>>
>
>Complementarity. Why must the other be ignored?
Glove:
Great question! Complementarity states that each observation is a complete
observation in itself, and so we are prohibited from stating what has
occurred before the observation takes place as well as what occurs after the
observing is completed. In his SODV paper Pirsig links that observing to
static quality patterns of value and he links the "unmeasured phenomena" to
Dynamic Quality.
Starting with static quality, we will remember that Pirsig
states that the four levels are exhaustive, containing everything we can
conceive of. We cannot conceive outside of them, yet he says Dynamic Quality
is that "something" which lies outside the four levels and yet permeates
them as well. We can feel the effects of Dynamic Quality but when we put a
name on "it", now it is no longer Dynamic Quality. Our agreement has changed
it into a recognizable something, part of our static quality reality. This
is why Dynamic Quality is so hard to explain.
We are
forced to ignore Dynamic Quality in itself by the very way we perceive
reality in a static quality sense according to Pirsig's placement of Occam's
Razor. I have found this also applicable when I discover that I am in a deep
state of zazen and the static world as such I think of it in an everyday
world is no longer there. That's not exactly right though, because before
"I" discover that I am indeed in a deep state of zazen, there is nothing
there to discover anything. I'm probably confusing you all more than helping
here.
Anyway, using this same notion of a complete cognitive observation, Bohr saw
that it
could be applied to the atomic system as well and called it his framework of
complementarity.
Bohr focused entirely upon static quality reality and in doing so,
steadfastly refused to speculate upon where the observation arose, what
Pirsig has labeled Dynamic Quality. The first
"division" of reality in the Metaphysics of Quality demands that.
Furthermore, each observation is
complete in itself, leading away from a deterministic point of view.
Bohr recognized the same feature applied when investigating the atomic
system. Actually he was forced into it when it was discovered that the law
of conservation applied at the atomic level and could not be ignored,
something Bohr tried to do in his earlier work.
I hope this helps. I'll look forward to your reply!
Best wishes
Glove
>***************************************************************************
>
>*****************************************
>
>Roger's version:
>
>OK, pay back time for ya'll....... Here are my attempts at answers. Note I
>added a definition for quality, it's absence was apparent in the
definitions.
>I also followed Magnus' lead and reversed the order of 2 and 3.
>
>1a)Quality is value. Everything is defined and created by value.
>
>1b)Dynamic Quality is pure experience. Pure experience is preconceptual
value
>change or interaction.
>
>3)Static quality is patterned, conceptualized experience.
Glove:
How do pure experience and conceptualized experience interact? Is there a
specific point of interaction?
>
>2)The quality event is an experience event collapsing potential
preconceptual
>quality into definite conceptualized patterns.
Glove: How does this occur? What causes the collapse?
>
>4)As patterns became more complex, they gain the ability to be reactive to
>experience. Inorganic patterns emerge into aware biological patterns which
>value pattern continuance and extension. The social level emerges as
patterns
>share and coordinate experience. The intellectual level emerges as
societies
>learn to "pattern the patterns."
Glove:
Experience must gain the ability to be reactive to patterns of value. That
is why we are born helpless and mute into the world. The intellect pertains
to the individual, not to society. The intellect opposes the social layer.
Remember, the levels are contained within our self. There is no social level
pattern of value that we can point to and say there! there it is! It isn't
"out there".
>
>5)Patterns evolve toward enhanced complexity; hence, enhanced freedom of
>experience and enhanced experience.
Glove:
What about a rock? Rock is an inorganic pattern of value. What is rock
evolving towards?
>
>Have at it!
>
>Roger
>
>
>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