ROGER ADDS SOME COMMENTS AND
QUESTIONS TO DL'S RECENT POST
Below is a cut'n'paste of David Lind's recent responses to Clark and Tor. I
agree with different pieces of each writer's ideas. I have directed my
responses primarily to David for clarity in this post. Sorry if I took
something out of context...if so please correct me.
DAVID LIND:
Am I alone in seeing "Pirsigs "many truths"
as "what is true now (given one's available experience)is not
necessarily ALWAYS or FOREVER true?" i.e. - that the world was flat
WAS true for those at that time (for all practical purposes - they
lived life as if it were true, so therefore for them it was true) and
now we have the truth that the world is round - based upon information
we possess that those who believed it was flat did not.
ROGER:
Truth is a logically consistent model. Many models are possible. In fact, I
would say every member of the squad has a slightly different model. There are
many truths, but the test of truth is Quality. One of the goals of this
forum should be to improve our models...improve our truths. Based on our
differing static histories and contexts, I doubt we will ever concur on any
single truth, and according to the MOQ, that truth needs to be able to evolve
over time. SOM, the MOQ and SOLAQI are all different truths with myriads of
evolving subtruths branched off of these channels.
Did I answer your question? Note how I seem to find "model" interchangeable
with the word "truth" in the MOQ? It closely tracks some ideas I got reading
W. James. Does anybody have any input on this 'truth"?
DAVID:
I don't see it as "many truths = everything is true" - just that
truth is that which, based upon available information, explains things
the best. I'm sure there are many things we see as "true" now, that
will in the future, be shown to be "not true." Doesn't make them any
less true NOW, does it?
ROGER:
The key to me is to go back to the base reality of the MOQ. Reality is
quality, and quality is an event. Truths are intellectual models or static
patterns of this experience. To quote James "Realities are not true; THEY
ARE. Beliefs of reality are true."
DAVID:
I agree, but there seems to be a repetitive confusion about morality.
That the universe is a moral universe doesn't mean that what's most
moral always happens. Just like a parent who wants what's best for
their child doesn't always do what's best for them. I believe that
the "morality" of the universe is a structure. Most of the times what
happens is the most moral, but when events happen that are not the
most moral, the path that was created eventually dies out.
I still think that there is confusion about "moral" and "what we
think is the "right" thing to do. (As with Victorian "morality").
And being limited by our perception of Quality (we can never fully
understand Quality at this point of our existence - we are limited by
the intellectual ceiling) - we may not realize that while something
seems immoral ("wrong") - it may actually be Moral (having the highest
level of Quality).
ROGER:
All is moral. All is good. What Ken or others perceive as less moral or
immoral is just conflicting patterns of good.
DAVID LIND:
If Quality is all there is, how could we be
responsible for it? We are affected by it, but to be responsible for
it, seems to imply that we are outside of it somehow.
If Quality is all there is and Dynamic Quality is like a river that
we are standing in (ever changing, ever flowing), we are affected by
it and we can even attempt to affect it - dam it up, divert the
stream, etc... but can we ever truly change it? Even if we go to the
source and try to block it up - the force of the river will find a way
to circumvent out efforts. It will still exist. Quality is not
omething we can affect.
ROGER:
"We" and other forms of Static quality are derived from this stream of DQ. I
think Pirsig would say that living beings do affect DQ, though this
terminology may be overly dualistic. I think that the realm of the possible
is affected by past choices. Now those choices are themselves responses to
DQ, but we are now entering the self referential feedback loops that cause
the whole dualistic free will platypi in the first place. (I believe you went
on in your post to Ken saying something similar to this, so I think we agree
a lot here)
TOR WROTE:
So now I've got DQ rippling up and down the levels, but the
source-spark has to be at the inorganic level, I can't get by this
source spark bit without all layers becoming deterministic because
they are implemented by the layers below...
This may sound more harsh than I intend, it boils down to the fact
that you can't implement randomness in a deterministic system
DAVID RESPONDED:
Isn't the source spark within Quality itself? Wouldn't the source
spark need to be outside of (before the) first level? In my opinion
the heirarchy would go like this: Quality-(source spark)-Inroganic
level. The source spark occuring just before the inorganic level came
to be.
ROGER:
The inorganic level does nothing. Static patterns don't spark anything. DQ
is the spark. DQ is the direct experience, the quality interelationship from
which static patterns are derived. And even here, I have long since rejected
the one directional "truth" that explains each level as ONLY being derived
from those below. I believe the truth is more holistic and intertwined where
the higher levels emerge out of the lower but also the lower are defined and
co-created by the higher. Another self referential feedback loop. Clark
seems to allude to something similar as below.
CLARK WROTE:
Tor, keep in mind that this interacting DQ and SQ that is rippling
up and down the system is unimaginably complex because it has been
doing this from the beginning and thus is continually creating and
filling possibilities. My view of the matter is that the universe is a
deterministic system but because of the complexity that has been
generated in bringing the universe to its present condition there is
no way that we can ever trace the deterministic pathway. In my view we
are now living in what is effectively a non-deterministic universe
because of this impenetrable complexity.
DAVID L RESPONDED:
Another way to look at this is that it's much simpler than that.
There is Quality. This is subdivided into Dynamic and Static Quality.
Dynamic Quality drives life. Static latches are created to hang on
to the good. There are a lot of possibilities, but rather than trying
to imagine every single possibility - classify them under the heading
"possibilities" and we've put them into a bite we can handle. Just
trying to keep things simple. :o)
ROGER:
And who or what creates these latches? What are they composed of? What is sq
in terms of DQ?
Roger
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 - 16:03:14 BST