From: Scott Roberts (jse885@earthlink.net)
Date: Wed Oct 13 2004 - 15:31:46 BST
David M,
Agree. One could say that an individual is DQ/SQ writ small. Also, I think
DQ and freedom may be synonyms. Freedom to create, anyway.
- Scott
> [Original Message]
> From: David Morey <us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk>
> To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
> Date: 10/12/2004 1:40:59 PM
> Subject: Re: MD A bit of reasoning
>
> Hi
>
> A thought: being an individual is being
> unique to some extent, only one person
> can occupy the different spaces at the same
> time as me across the time of my life. This very
> individuality implies DQ. We face new circumstances.
> Very much our own unique circumstances and problems.
> We need to find a path through these unique choices.
> This activity implies agency, DQ, freedom all together.
>
> Agree/disagree?
>
> DM
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Scott Roberts" <jse885@earthlink.net>
> To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 2:46 PM
> Subject: Re: MD A bit of reasoning
>
>
> > Steve,
> >
> > > Steve:
> > > The MOQ considers intellect subjective. I'm not sure what your
> > > complaint is about the place for intellect within Pirsig's MOQ. I'm
> > > sure you've been through this before, but would you mind summarizing
> > > your view?
> >
> > [Scott:] The MOQ considers intellect to be the fourth level of SQ, and
in
> > later notes, Pirsig defines intellect as the manipulation of abstract
> > symbols. Further, the self is defined as inorganic, biological, social,
> and
> > intellectual SQ capable of responding to DQ. Now, what is DQ? The MOQ
says
> > it should be undefined, but it seems to me one can say a couple of
things
> > about it. One is that it is creativity, that it drives evolution -- it,
> and
> > only it leaves new SQ behind. The other is that it is one, that is,
there
> > is not a DQ for the inorganic level, another for the biological, not one
> > for Earth, and another for Mars, and so on. Now this may sound like I am
> > reifying DQ, making it sound too much like God, but as I see it that is
> > already implied in defining the self as capable of responding to DQ,
> rather
> > being itself DQ and SQ. And it seems to deny creativity to the self, and
> > that is what I object to.
> >
> > A difference between the intellectual level and the other levels is
that I
> > can only observe the SQ of the other levels, but I can make SQ on the
> > intellectual level. To some extent I have control of the SQ that my mind
> > churns out. Obviously not complete control, in that a great deal of time
> my
> > mind seems to be running on automatic. But I can be more or less
mindful,
> > which pretty much means being more or less in control. These words that
I
> > am typing out are new SQ. Not earth-shaking, to be sure, like "e=mc^2",
> but
> > new nevertheless, and not completely new, since I am mostly just putting
> > old ideas in new words. Nevertheless, what I type could be radically new
> > SQ, a new mathematical proof, a new philosophy, a new poem, a new
> > scientific hypothesis. Thus, as I see it, when we are being creative,
we
> > are DQ. And, since we can examine and change our own SQ (our beliefs and
> > desires). we are self-evolving.
> >
> > Now the question is, is what I am saying just a different way of saying
> > that I am responding to DQ. Am I just introducing confusion to make a
> point
> > that has no great significance. Well, obviously I don't think so. The
> > reason I don't think so is that if we ignore our own creativity we are
> > ignoring our ability to see DQ and SQ actually creating. Our own minds
are
> > creating and letting us view creation. We have got the basic MOQ
principle
> > in microcosm right here in our minds.
> >
> > However, the microcosmic MOQ of the self only applies to the
intellectual
> > level (I can only create intellectual SQ). So a question may be raised
on
> > whether it has anything to say about how the MOQ works on the other
> levels.
> > I say that it does, for a couple of reasons. The first is that SQ
consists
> > of static patterns of value, and the difference between a pattern and a
> > thing or event that instantiates the pattern is the old philosophical
> > distinction between universals and particulars, and that is what
intellect
> > works with. This means that one needs to add particulars to the MOQ.
That
> > can be done by using Peirce's triads. For Peirce, any event is a
> > sign-event, by which he means there is a particular, a universal which
> that
> > particular instantiates, and an interpretant, which recognizes the
> > universal that the particular instantiates. Unless all three are present
> > there is no meaning, no value. Now to reconcile this with the MOQ's
> > position that value precedes any differentiation, one also observes that
> > without value, there is no triad. That is, this is consistent with
saying
> > that value creates the triad.
> >
> > The second reason is in response to the objection that in the MOQ,
Reality
> > is an undivided whole, and that it is intellect that makes divisions,
> > resulting in menus and not food. To this I reply that without divisions
> > there is no reality. Here is where the Copernican Inversion needs to go
> > another step. Human intellect makes divisions, and thereby creates
> > realities, called language games. So does DQ, only we call it inorganic,
> > biological, and social reality. Inorganic reality results by choosing
> > certain physical laws, and within the confines of those laws, inorganic
> > reality takes place. Same with the rest. In other words, creation is
> > differentiation, the setting of limits, which limits are SQ. DQ breaks
up
> > old limits and sets new limits. That's Intellect.
> >
> > > Steve:
> > > does this mean that you don't like Pirsig's DQ as the leading edge of
> > > experience which creates sq?
> >
> > See below, on a problem with DQ.
> >
> > [Scott prev:]>> plus the observation that Quality is
> > >> meaningless without appreciation of value.
> >
> > > This is the SOM assumption anyway...
> >
> > SOM assumes that there is a subject that appreciates an object. I am
only
> > assuming appreciation, and that it is better to think of it, as Pirsig
> puts
> > it, as between the subject and the object, or among the nodes of the
> > Peircean triad. The point of bringing it up is that to get appreciation,
> > *some* differentiating is necessary, however we might describe it.
> >
> > >
> > [Scott prev:]> > That does not mean that humans
> > > > are the only appreciators. In fact, in the end what one gets is that
> > > > Quality is its own appreciation. To put this all together, I
suggest
> > > > that
> > > > what Quality divides into (conceptually) is a triad (sign, pattern,
> and
> > > > interpretant), not a dyad (subject and object, or dynamic and
static),
> >
> > > Steve:
> > > Pirsig suggests that there are lots of ways one can create a
> > > metaphysics of quality...
> > >
> > > "A subject-object metaphysics is in fact a metaphysics in which the
> > > first division of Quality-the first slice of undivided experience-is
> into
> > > subjects and objects. Once you have made that slice, all of human
> > > experience is supposed to fit into one of these two boxes. The trouble
> > > is, it doesn't. What he had seen is that there is a metaphysical box
> that
> > > sits above these two boxes, Quality itself. And once he'd seen this he
> > also
> > > saw a huge number of ways in which Quality can be divided. Subjects
and
> > > objects are just one of the ways.
> > >
> > > The question was, which way was best?"
> > >
> > > To me, your way sounds the same as SOM.
> >
> > That's because you have not grasped the idea that, while we
differentiate
> > (e.g., into subjects and objects, or into triads) to understand reality,
> > Quality differentiates to create reality. Intellect, like Quality,
> precedes
> > any particular differentiation.
> >
> > > Can you explain where the dq/sq cut fits in with your triad?
> >
> > No, because DQ seems to me to be used in two different ways (which I
want
> > to examine in a separate thread), as the creation of new SQ, and as the
> > leading edge of experience. Is there DQ when I am running on automatic?
I
> > accept that metaphysically the DQ/SQ split is of utmost importance,
since
> > that is the basis of morality.
> >
> > - Scott
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> > Mail Archives:
> > Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> > Nov '02 Onward -
> http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> > MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
> >
> > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> > http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
> >
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward -
http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Oct 13 2004 - 17:21:58 BST