From: David Harding (davidharding@optusnet.com.au)
Date: Tue Nov 08 2005 - 05:34:57 GMT
Hi Case,
>
> [David]
> Now that I've helped with the name, I might as well respond to the theory.
>
> I don't think that you need to compare something to something else in order
> for it to be bad, or good. Sit on a hot stove, is it bad or good? Listen to
> your favorite song, is it bad or good? All that's being compared is the
> music to Dynamic Quality, which isn't really a comparison, because Dynamic
> Quality is nothing and is there all along. But to understand it
> intellectually/metaphysically however, I agree, I'd need to compare what
> happened with past experiences and make a judgement as to whether it was a
> good thing or a bad thing. Maybe it's a social requirement that we have
> singed pants? :)
>
> [Case]
> Since this whole thread is off the track of whether or not we should be
> polite to one another. And since you bring it up I would like to beg one
> more time for anyone to explain to me why this weirdness about dynamic
> quality is so persistant.
I don't see any 'weirdness'.
>
> I have argued repeatedly that having a multiple undefined terms is folly. So
> I will present as nearly as possible in sound bites, the main terms of the
> MoQ as they seem Good to me.
>
Which multiple terms do you refer? According to the MOQ at the most basic level, there are two names for Quality, Dynamic Quality and Static Quality.
> Quality - Undefined - the Tao. When apprended in its purest form it reflects
> the union or balance between opposites. It is the monism from which all
> dualisms spring. As Lao Tsu put it: "When named it is the mother of all
> things." Perceptually it is harmony or balance. To pursue it is to follow
> The Way of Virtue. It is undefined not for mystical or esthetic reason but
> for practical reasons. It is 'reality' and 'reality' is unknowable as
> Heisenburg, Godel, Wilson, Hume, Kant, and just about anyone who thinks
> about much can testify. Our apprehension of Quality is limited by our very
> nature.
> Value - Is the quantification of Quality. The hot stove is Low Quality or
> better yet Negative Quality. It repels us. But consider for a moment a
> merely warm stove. It may not be so hot as to burn you. It may be the only
> place in the room to sit. If it is turned on and the temperature is
> increasing, this increase can be measured and assigned a numerical value.
> You can even take note of which specific Values individuals find to hot to
> handle. Value is undervalued in these MoQ discussions. Values can be
> assigned to dualistic opposites in many ways. We like or dislike things
> esthetically. We give it a thumbs up or thumbs down. Or we like it a lot and
> give it 4 stars. Or Values can be specified with increasing precision
> leading to math and physics which are all about the relationships and
> interaction of Values. The point being that in the MoQ both physics and art
> are all about the interplay of Values.
>
To me your description of Quality is known as Dynamic Quality and your description of Value is what's known as static quality. In the MOQ Quality and Value are the same thing.
> Dynamic - A much abused term in these discussions. It's meaning seems to
> range from the undefined to the mystical to the intellect to the warm
> fuzziness of the ineffablly groovy. Mostly it seems to be redundantly
> identified with Quality itself. Pirsig himself contributes to this
> confusion. The term has extraordinary Value when taken a face Value. That is
>
> Dynamic means change, flux, motion. From the wave property of matter to the
> a priori concept of time to the paradigm shift in ideas; the dynamic can be
> assigned Value from positive and negative to specific quantification of rate
> of change.
I don't think Dynamic Quality is the same as the the physics terms of change, flux and motion. Dynamic Quality as you've already described is "When named it is the mother of all things." To mistake
Dynamic Quality with the dynamics of physics I think is a mistake because this means it can then be associated with chaos, which isn't Dynamic Quality at all.
>
> Static - The opposite of dynamic as any dualistic pole should be. Static
> means stable, fixed, orderly.
>
I'll agree with the above in reference to static quality patterns.
> I would love to go on and on about how useful this version of MoQ is but I
> have thus far been unable to get anyone to even say that it is bad or
> misguided.
If no one's said it's miguided, then why not go on? I think because it's misguided. That said, I don't think it's bad. :)
> I do not find this formulation to be at odds with what Pirsig
> says.
I do. From Lilas Child..
"I think the mathematical definition of chaos deals exclusively with what the MOQ would call static objective patterns. The word “dynamical” is a term of physics that refers to changes in space and
time. It is not the same as Dynamic Quality."
> I also think it cuts through many of the arguments going on here and
> paves the way for intergration of the MoQ into a broad range of subjects
> from evolution to theology.
If it can do these things then please explain how and how it is better than the Metaphysics Pirsig has suggested.
Thanks,
-David.
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 Nov 08 2005 - 06:07:06 GMT