From: Steve & Oxsana Marquis (marquis@nccn.net)
Date: Fri Jun 17 2005 - 23:20:42 BST
Scott responds to my query:
___________________
Didn't Pirsig claim as one of the attributes of a person the ability to
respond to DQ?
Scott:
He did, but I fail to see that it helps the problem. Why not say that an
agent *is* DQ (or better, DQ/SQ interaction)? Why not acknowledge that
intellect creates? Because, as far as I can see, to do so conflicts with his
anti-intellectual prejudice, stemming from his mystical presuppositions.
__________________
Scott, I just don't see Pirsig's anti-intellectual prejudice as you seem to.
IMO there is a difference between analysis and choice, the second provides
the motivation to change, ie, respond to DQ. Yes, I would say an agent is
intellectual SQ interacting with DQ. Further, an agent selects change
knowingly, whereas an instinctual or habitual behavioral response would be
something less than agency. Analytic 'understanding', to use a Hegelian
term, cannot create. Synthetic reason is a different matter for we are
inducing more than was present in the premises. Synthetic reason is
creative. That might be an angle to work on.
Scott:
_________________
For instance, one can ask if inorganic patterns are able to respond to DQ,
and if not, then what is it about intellectual patterns that make them
different in this regard. And one can ask, if the ability to respond to DQ
is not separate from the static patterns themselves, should one be calling
them static?
________________
At the inorganic, biological, and social levels sans intellect the response
to DQ (the evolutionary drive which generates the higher levels in the first
place) seems to me to be an un self aware filling of possibilities in the
current state of things, like water filling pools in the low spots of a new
river course.
The response at the intellectual level, however, is an aware chosen
response. What comes next is due to agency, it is no longer 'blind'
evolution but selected. Pirsig did not choose to add an additional static
level above the intellectual one. One possible reason for that might be
that agency (self awareness) alleviates the need for further levels in the
evolutionary process due to this ability of 'direct' response to DQ.
I see intellectual quality as concepts. That sounds quite static. Could
list them all out in a textbook. But the ability to synthesize from those
concepts to generate new concepts, what are we to make of that? Is this
different than agency? Or are both responding directly to DQ? (How is
synthetic reasoning related to intuition, for example?)
An aside on static patterns; this is a convenient nomenclature for
discussion only. Nothing is really static, only stable long enough to be
perceived, so, in this sense, everything is dynamic. Our mind
conceptualizes the perceived patterns as static. This enables the use of
our language and analysis tools and consequently, re perceiving the world as
SOM.
I don't seem to have the issue with an intellectual static level as you do,
but there certainly is confusion going on at the interface with DQ.
Live well,
Steve
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 : Fri Jun 17 2005 - 23:39:01 BST