From: Steve & Oxsana Marquis (marquis@nccn.net)
Date: Tue Jul 05 2005 - 18:27:16 BST
Matt wrote:
___________________
What I would like to do is suggest that harmony shouldn't be used as it is
typically used by Pirsigians. There are basically two versions I would here
like to criticize. The first is the idea that harmony is represented by a
static pattern's harmonious relationship with Quality/DQ (it matters little
which).
__________________
Matt, being somewhat new here my 'self' doesn't have a real 'stable' static
intellectual pattern of what a typical Pirsigian is, or what in such a
collection of patterns constitutes harmony. I'll go along with the two you
describe and see what develops.
1. Harmony = coherent relationship between one or more static patterns and
DQ / Quality.
You criticize this on the grounds that DQ is ineffable, a no-thing. Harmony
implies relationship between (at least) two things, so there cannot possibly
be a relationship with DQ, let alone a harmonious one. This was illustrated
by my Jnana vs Bhakti Yogas. Bhakti is based on relationship, and so is a
dualistic path (God and the student being the poles of the relationship).
OK, fine.
Matt:
_______________
"SQ-SQ coherence as DQ."
.
The core of this view is that it is the harmony _between_ static patterns
that produces DQ.
_______________
2. Harmony = coherence amongst / between static patterns = DQ
You criticize this on the grounds that DQ / Q is, after all, dynamic (or
better, the non-stable plenum from which stability arises, the non-latched
no-thing). Harmony between static patterns is at the seeming opposite
(harmony is really opposite 'tension', see below); represented by the
tendency of a stable system of patterns to not change. Fine as well.
I always envisioned harmony as the mutually beneficial (beneficial =
maintenance of existing patterns which does not = better necessarily; it is
a 'localized' good) interaction between 'stable' patterns (yes, I like
'stable' better than 'static'). I think this is where you are headed. Let'
s rephrase 2.:
3. Harmony = coherence amongst / between stable patterns
Matt:
________________
Change occurs because static patterns are engines of change-they are meant
to swim because they are suffused, through and through, with DQ (an image
that Mark also uses). We still shouldn't, however, think of DQ as causing
change. We change as static patterns come in conflict with each other (Mark
also uses "tension," in addition to "harmony," as a term for what happens
when static pattern produce DQ, but I'm not sure how the two terms are
supposed to fit together for him). These patterns interact and, in a
Hegelian manner, sometimes
create new patterns.
_________________
So we have harmony / coherence as terms representing the stableness of a
given system of existents (co-existing patterns) and tension / conflict
representing the un-stableness (potential for change) of the same system.
All of this descriptive terminology is applying to SQ and gets us away from
applying metaphysics to DQ. That eliminates the necessity for the two
separate terms of DQ and Quality, does it not? We can say Quality suffuses
and interpenetrates all stable patterns (we end up with MOSQ rather than
MOQ).
Correct my feedback, Matt.
Matt:
___________
Harmony, on this count, is what happens when we get our patterns to fit
together.
___________
To paraphrase Pirsig: "All you are doing when working on the motorcycle is
working towards your own piece of mind" [ie, harmony, SM].
However, Matt wrote:
___________
If we think of our patterns as static, we are more likely to think of our
"self" as a circle moving over top an unmoving mass of patterns. But we
don't have a "self" like this (that version of the "self" being a modern,
SOMic idea). All there is to our "self" are these patterns, but they are
all open, all shifting, stable but always with the possibility of
instability.
___________
Yes, a 'self' that is a distinct separateness from the rest of reality is an
SOM idea. Awareness of this pseudo-separation (appearance) enables agency.
Agency is a recent epitome of evolution, so I wouldn't disregard it out of
hand. Agency is the essence of aware evolution. This is a little more than
'just' a collection of patterns. Whatever is continuous in the shifting
flux of patterns we want to identify as 'personhood' will include the stable
pattern of agency. In reference to a couple of other threads agency is
necessary for 'free' will and morality. So, contrary to the drift of
several forum members who seem to wish to deny the self any validity I would
advise careful consideration.
SOM is a subset of the MOQ. SOM may reject the MOQ, but it doesn't work the
other way around. So, the 'self' awareness of agency can remain right at
home in the MOQ without conflict.
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 : Tue Jul 05 2005 - 19:37:38 BST