Re: MD Ironic Metaphysics

From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Sat Jan 18 2003 - 14:13:53 GMT

  • Next message: David Buchanan: "RE: MD Pirsig a liberal?"

    Hi Joe, All:

    > The Metaphysics Of Quality according to Persig is that Quality is divided
    > into Dynamic and Static Quality. Quality is the only absolute. The theory
    > of How I know Quality is through undefined, instinctive experience, like
    > how a baby learns. How I know the pattern of static quality, or how dq
    > becomes a pattern is unclear?

    I think we know patterns of static quality by what we see around us in
    everyday experience. DQ comes as a surprise. DQ becomes a new
    pattern when it is perceived as better than a current static pattern and is
    "latched" when it becomes obvious that the new pattern contributes to
    evolution towards betterment.

    > It is also unclear how the instinctive sense
    > is configured?

    I would guess the same way as the moral order is configured, i.e., by a
    hierarchy of inorganic, biological, social and intellectual levels.

    > Moral orders, instinctively sensed, add complexoty to an
    > individual?

    They are present at birth, but become more developed as growth occurs.

    > Static quality preserves an experienced Dynamic movement?

    Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Many Dynamic experiences come and
    go with no static preservation at all.

    > Are
    > moral orders absolute?

    In the MoQ the moral hierarchy is absolute. As Pirsig says, "They are
    exhaustive . . . nothing is left out."

    > "Impossible to evolve sentient from non-sentient forms." I agree, so what
    > can be added?

    A universal principle of betterment that drives evolution.
     
    > Quality Is Value. I suggest There are Three absolutes: Quality, Existence,
    > Purpose. There are three instincts, three brains to enable a movement from
    > non-sentient to sentient.

    I would put Existence and Purpose as subsets of Quality, but agree that
    they are absolutes.
     
    > Sentient: a being with a reflexive awareness of self. The self is
    > contained in one absolute at a time. Non-sentient: a being with only
    > positive, or negative awareness, or with positive and negative awareness,
    > but no awareness from a third absolute.
     
    Would suggest using "Self-awareness" instead of "Sentient." Otherwise,
    I agree with your insight. Doing something is what all aware entities do.
    Knowing you are doing something with a purpose in mind is the grabber
    that sets us apart.

    Platt

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    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 : Sat Jan 18 2003 - 14:20:06 GMT