From: David Morey (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Wed Oct 13 2004 - 19:54:29 BST
Freedom, the possible, nothing, is what makes
mankind what it is. I agree, and so does Heidegger
by the way.
DM
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Roberts" <jse885@earthlink.net>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 3:31 PM
Subject: Re: MD A bit of reasoning
> 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
>
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 : Thu Oct 14 2004 - 00:10:35 BST