From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Mon May 23 2005 - 16:05:55 BST
Hi Mike,
Mike to Ham:
> The following grabbed my attention:
>
> "In fact, it has occurred to me
> only
> recently that SQ and DQ as used in the MoQ are paradoxically reversed. That
> is, if DQ is the ontological foundation for a multi-level existence, it is
> the "static" unchanging source, while the historical and evolutionary
> patterns in the relational world are the "dynamic" events. In Essentialism,
> as well as Platonism, Buddhism and most monotheistic worldviews, man is the
> "dynamic" agent of an unmoved mover. Perhaps you can enlighten me as to why
> Pirsig chose Dynamic Quality to identify the unitary Whole, and Static
> Quality for its dynamic constituents."
Mike comments:
> The very same thing, or at least something similar, occured to me recently.
> The reversal fascinates me, but I see it as the most enticing thing about
> the MOQ. Perhaps I can shed light on your puzzlement, but first I'd like to
> make a picky alteration to your phrasing, because I think it slightly
> misconstrues the MOQ. You call the "unitary Whole" DQ, when according to my
> understanding it should be all-encompassing Quality. This is split into
> (and here comes the paradox, as I see it) DQ, the indestructable eternal
> creating force, and SQ, the patterns that form the bewildering flux of
> change that surrounds all of us.
I agree that Quality, before dividing it into Dynamic and Static, is the
"unitary whole," not DQ.
> I'd like to explain why I find this paradox such a satisfying explanation,
> but I need time to get my thoughts together. For now, can I just ask you
> whether or not your conception of the paradox is satisfied by my
> rephrasing? It was pedantic, but it'll be safer if we get this straight
> before launching into a lengthy discussion.
I can't resist chiming in before you launch a further discussion of the
paradox. For me, Quality, the unitary whole, = existence = reality =
experience = Tao = the Absolute. It includes within its wholeness all
dualities necessary for rational thought such as permanence/change,
dynamic/static (per MOQ), and subject/object (per SOM), mind/matter/
good/evil, etc. Such dualities are necessary for there to be any
discussion of the "Whole." But words can no more define the "Whole" than
define Beauty. The best we can do is attempt to discern what the Whole
means, if anything, through intuition and such rational powers as we're
able to muster. But reason, in the end, isn't up to job. It inevitably
leads to paradox, such as the present never changes but everything that
changes changes in the present. To top it off, reason meets its ultimate
frustration in Godel's Incompleteness Theorem whereby a logical system
cannot prove its own validity.
Given this inability to fully understand the Whole, some, especially among
science ideologues, give up completely and assert that existence has no
meaning at all. Others, falling back on the only resource left, their
intuition, believe there is meaning in the Whole like Pirsig who begins
with the premise that the Whole is Morality and proceeds to build a
rational case on that basis, making the first cut Dynamic/Static, both of
which permanently change, like a river and its banks.
Anyway, take what you want from this view, if anything, and leave the
rest. I'll look forward to your analysis.
Best,
Platt
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 : Mon May 23 2005 - 16:13:09 BST