From: ian glendinning (psybertron@gmail.com)
Date: Wed May 25 2005 - 08:04:05 BST
BTW Scott et al ...
My little aphorism for the binary chop (clasification) problem is ...
"Everything comes in three layers, including layers."
Now that IS an axiom.
Ian
On 5/25/05, ian glendinning <psybertron@gmail.com> wrote:
> Scott,
>
> You said - if I may condense ..
> "Pirsig's division into DQ and SQ is too simple ... [and is in error]
> ... because it privileges DQ over sq (explicitly)."
>
> Agreed, but let's not throw baby (MoQ) out with the bathwater here.
>
> D/S - Every binary-chop classification is an intellectual convenience
> of some zillion shades of grey in complex reality. MoQ is not exempt.
> DQ / SQ simply identifies an axis, a dimension, a degree of freedom,
> an issue, our world view must recognise.
>
> Q/q - There absolutely is no doubt Dynamics is lost without the static
> latches - they depend on each other to be where they are. But, anyone
> trying to be radical is going to tend to favour DQ - it's more
> exciting, sexy, risky, etc. Anyone being passive and conservative,
> would have little reason to have an opinion on the matter let alone
> post one to a discussion board. We are a self-selecting bunch. Except
> Platt that is, whose reason to contribute is to have fun taunting the
> radicals :-) - but that makes him perversely Q IMHO. In other words,
> Q/q is just human nature.
>
> So rather than abandoning MoQ - just swap out Metaphysics for Model. A
> good useful working model of the real world (including human nature,
> by gad.) But nothing fundamantally metaphysical. There is no
> metaphysics anyway - MoQ is simply the best of a misguided bunch.
>
> Ian
>
> On 5/24/05, Scott Roberts <jse885@localnet.com> wrote:
> > Mike,
> >
> > First, a warning that I am more of a MOQ dissenter than a MOQist, so don't
> > assume that what I say is an interpretation of Pirsig. It's more of a
> > counter metaphysics.
> >
> > In my view, Pirsig's division into DQ and SQ is too simple, in part for the
> > point you made in an earlier post that the dynamic is the permanent, and the
> > static is the changing. I have frequently used the phrase "the logic of
> > contradictory identity" (taken from Nishida) to deal with this: Your raising
> > the issue of time is another case where the logic of contradictory identity
> > (LCI) applies. We experience continuity because we change, and experience
> > change because we are continuous. One has a situation where the LCI is
> > required when you have two terms, which contradict each other, but at the
> > same time constitute each other.
> >
> > The point of this is to keep the contradictory identity at the forefront,
> > while metaphysical error occurs when one of the two terms is privileged over
> > the other. The MOQ, in my view, falls into error because it privileges DQ
> > over SQ (explicitly so, given that a true-blue MOQist will refer to them as
> > DQ and sq, not DQ and SQ). Hence, I think you are wrong to say "because the
> > interaction itself empirically precedes the static patterns". The empirical
> > is the static pattern, which in being experienced is dynamic.
> >
> > My other main gripe against the MOQ is its devaluation of intellect with
> > respect to DQ. In this, the MOQ continues the modernist error of thinking of
> > intellect and language as a set of human add-ons to a universe that is
> > fundamentally without them. Instead, I see Intellect as also being a
> > dynamic/static contradictory identity, that is, as being at the same
> > metaphysical level as Quality, and so if one wants to investigate how the
> > dynamic and static interact, there is no better place for it than
> > investigating one's own consciousness. But, according to the MOQ, this is an
> > error, which says we should put our intellect to sleep in order to
> > experience "pure experience". I consider "pure experience" to be a MOQ
> > chimera.
> >
> > - Scott
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Michael Hamilton
> > To: moq_discuss@moq.org
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 4:05 AM
> > Subject: Re: MD Time
> >
> > Hello again,
> >
> > Luckily I just stumbled across the relevant chapter of Lila's Child, so I'm
> > now aware that I'm doing something "dangerous" by trying to tie DQ to an
> > existing concept. I definitely need to clarify my suggestion.
> >
> > By "Time", I wasn't referring to the concepts we have of before and after,
> > or the arbitary ways in which we divide time into minutes and seconds and so
> > forth. If it's even possible, I was referring to time in a concept-free way,
> > as the thoroughly empirical and undefined Big Long Now, equivalent to
> > Pirsig's wordier description "the first slice of undifferentiated
> > experience". I guess that Pirsig's description is much better, because
> > "Time" has a monstrous amount of philosophical, conceptual and scientific
> > baggage attached to it.
> >
> > However, I still think that the MOQ leads to all sorts of interesting
> > thoughts about time, with the proviso that these thoughts always involve
> > intellectual conceptualisations. Time is the constant interaction of static
> > patterns, though calling it "interaction" is misleading, because the
> > interaction itself empirically precedes the static patterns. The success of
> > a static pattern in this constant interaction (time) determines its quality.
> > And so on...
> >
> > Regards,
> > Mike
> >
>
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 May 25 2005 - 08:50:29 BST