David B REPLIES TO ROGER AND THE SILENCE AND SAYS THANKS FOR THE
FABULOUS FORMAT
> ROGER REPLIES TO PLATT AND THE SILENCE
> AND ASKS DAVID B TO REJOIN THE DISCUSSION
>
> David and Platt,
>
> I was waiting for David and Walter and everyone else to respond to
> Platt and
> Avid and my posts. Since they aren't talkin', I am going to continue
> without
> them.
>
> PLATT:
> I question describing DQ as "eternal flux" since DQ is conceptually
> unknown and thus indescribable except to say it can't be described.
> Did Pirsig use "eternal flux" someplace?
>
> ROGER:
> No he did not. I am getting it from Doug's Quantonic site I guess.
>
[David Buchanan] Since the word "Lila" means the eternal cosmic
dance, I've got no problem with "eternal flux" as a metaphor of DQ.
Eternal dance and eternal flux are similar enough to describe the same
"thing". However, I think "quantonics" is an ugly word, it doesn't exist
in my dictionary and I don't care much for Doug's approch to the MOQ. It
could just be a matter of personal intellectual style, but I don't think
it works.
> PLATT:
> Besides, and more importantly, it seems both David and Roger
> object to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics which
> Pirsig supports. Somewhere along the line we're going to have to
> come to terms with Bohr, Heisenberg and Pirsig on this one.
>
> ROGER:
> I wouldn't say I disagree yet. Let's dig into quantum interpretation
> and the
> MOQ. My only warning is that I disagree fundamentally with
> reductionist
> approaches that subatomic relationships are representative of higher
> level
> interrelationships.
>
[David Buchanan] My disagreement isn't with the Copenhagen
interpetation. Its just that problems in the Philosophy of Science are
different than metaphyscial questions in the same way that cops are
different than judges. They go together. They're both part of the same
process, but if we confuse one with the other or make their roles
interchangable, we've got serious problems. The copenhagen interpetation
has implications for the MOQ and says things about reality that are very
close to the MOQ. I understand that much. But questions about reality,
certainty and truth within science are very different than asking those
same questions in the broader context. I'm saying that there is a huge
difference between physics and metaphysics just like there's a
difference between handcuffs and legal procedures.
>
> DAVID WRO
> This is how questions of our perceptions are tied in with the overall
>
> scheme of the MOQ. Epistemologically speaking, our perceptions
> are indirect. They are heavily mediated through all the layers of
> reality that preceded the intellect in historical evolution.
>
> ROGER WROTE:
> This I totally disagree with. Intellectual experience is not buffered
>
> experience.
>
> PLATT WROTE:
> I agree with Roger. Not only is intellectual experience not buffered,
>
> but we can directly perceive Dynamic Quality, as examples in Lila of
> the song, the heart attack, the brujo, the baby, etc. clearly
> illustrate.
>
[David Buchanan] I'd agree that DQ can be percieved directly,
but not by the intellect. The fact that a baby is one example clearly
shows this direct experience is non-intellectual. An infant has not yet
developed an intellect of even social values. To be moved by music or
shaken by a heart attack doesn't seem particularly intellectual either.
And didn't Pirsig say explicitly that the Brujo was just acting out of
his own internal conflicts and had no "plans" to change his culture. He
just did it, as they say in Nike town. But this has very little to do
with mediation through the levels. DQ is above and beyond all the
static levels. You know, its the first split in the MOQ; static and
Dyanamic Quality.
>
> ROGER (now):
> Well David? You and Bodvar and half the squad seem to hold this
> belief.
> Platt and I and others disagree. In fact I think the intellectual
> level is
> closest to DQ and the most dynamic.
>
[David Buchanan] I'd agree if you'd said the intellectual level
is the most free and has the greatest chance to respond to DQ. It just
seems like a rather obvious contradiction to say that any static level
is dynamic. Wouldn't it be better to say that the intellectual level of
static patterns is the most complex and rapidly evolving level?
But more to the point... I wouldn't use the word "buffered"
instead of mediated in this context. It conjures up images of soft
bumpers and aspirin that's easy on the stomach. It seems to imply that
the levels are cushioned and protected from each other and that's not
what I mean by "mediation" at all. For a proper understanding, I'd ask
you to look at chapter 24. There Pirsig talks about the historical
reasons why science has become so "objective" and "amoral". He describes
the political battle between intellectuals and society, especially
between scientist and the church. And then on page 299 Pirsig writes...
"Once this political battle is resolved, the MOQ can then go
back and re-ask the question, 'just exactly HOW independant is science,
in fact, from society?' The answer it gives is, 'not at all'. A science
in which social patterns are of no account is as unreal and absurd as a
society in which biological patterns are of no account. It's an
impossibility."
AND
"Our scientific descriptions are always culturally derived"
AND
"The MOQ resolves the relationship between intellect and
society, subject and object, mind and matter, by embedding all of them
in a larger system of understanding. Objects are inorganic and
biological values; subjects are social and intellectual values. They are
NOT two mysterious universes that go floating around in some
subject-object dream that allows them no real contact with one another.
They have a matter of fact evolutionary relationship. That evolutionary
relationship is also a moral one."
I think it's easy enough to see that Pirsig is insisting that
the intellectual level was evolved out of the social level, just as the
social level evoloved from the biological. Each level is NOT INDEPENDENT
from its parent level. This is what I meant when I said that the
intellect is mediated thru all previous levels. "They have a
matter-of-fact evolutionary relationship" that glues all the levels into
a seamless whole, so to speak. And its not accident that this is the
section where Pirsig introduces the five moral codes. This is crucial
stuff!
> PLATT:
> Thanks Roger for creating a high quality format for responding to
> more than one person at a time. I assumed I could "borrow" it from
> yu without prior permission. I wish everyone would use it because
> it presents each contributor's views in a straightforward, easy-to-
> read fashion and encourages succinct responses.
>
> ROGER:
> It has just evolved out of our interaction. I don't think I am the
> first to
> use this, but again I could be wrong.
>
> Roger
>
[David Buchanan] Thanks for taking the time. I'm grateful for
the work you put into this forum. And even if it appears that I'm being
stubborn on certain points, it doesn't mean I haven't learned a lot. Our
disagreements force me to think and re-read, and that's a very good
thing.
Hugs and kisses, David B.
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:09 BST