From: Case (Case@iSpots.com)
Date: Tue Nov 08 2005 - 15:18:17 GMT
David,
Thanks for the comments! My responses follow.
Case
[Case in a previous episode]
> 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.
>
[David]
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.
[Case]
The view that Dynamic Quality and Quality are identical is exactly what I am
arguing against. But as you point out he also on occasion equates Value with
Quality as well. Making three undefined terms. I think this is unnecessary
and not really what he intended.
I don't think he ever equates Value and SQ but he does frequently use DQ
interchangeably with Quality. I think this is a mistake whether it is
intentional or merely out of enthusiasm I can't say.
Pirsig selects the term Quality instead of using the term Tao because he is
looking for a term westerners can embrace. In adopting this term he
emphasizes one aspect of the Tao. That is that it is concerned with the
relationship between opposites. Both Quality and Value are neutral terms
with positive connotations. So he is emphasizing the aspect of the undefined
that is Good.
But to follow The Way is to seek harmony. The Tao Te Ching is the Book of
the Way of Virtue. To pursue Virtue is to follow the path of balance or in
Christian terms to avoid sin. Sin meaning to miss the mark.
Pirsig first metaphysical cut is to divide Quality into dynamic and static
Value not DQ and SQ. If his intent was to divide quality into itself and its
not self much clearer terms could have been employed.
>[Case]
> 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.
[David]
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.
[Case]
Quality is the named "mother of all things" Dynamic and Static are its
children. Although they are never mentioned in the Tao Te Ching the Yang and
Yin are usually seen as the first children. As the Active and Passive
principles of nature their correspondence to the dictionary definitions of
Dynamic and Static is obvious.
I am willing to stick with Active and Passive but I do think the association
with Chaos is apt on several levels. The battle between Order and Chaos is a
central theme of many religions and philosophies. In modern preconceptions
of Chaos, Order is one manifestation of Chaos. I think life itself arises
from tension between total confusion and total stasis.
In fact as near as I can figure Mark Maxwell became all pissed off not
because I disagreed with him but because I over agreed with his
interpretation of the Sweet Spot. He claimed it was a secondary aspect of
the MoQ and I said it was the MoQ.
>[Case]
> Static - The opposite of dynamic as any dualistic pole should be.
> Static means stable, fixed, orderly.
>
[David]
I'll agree with the above in reference to static quality patterns.
[Case]
Cool, that's one term down.
[Case]
> I do not find this formulation to be at odds with what Pirsig says.
[David]
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."
[Case]
I don't have the context for this quote, so it is hard to evaluate. But the
definition I am using is not necessarily limited to time space or at least
not relationships among physical things. There are dynamic relationships
among ideas, sense perceptions and other internal states as well. For
example the dynamic relationship between me and my favorite song. I like it
because (Warning: intentional pun ahead...) it strikes a harmonious chord. I
am in a dynamic relationship to the song. Each time I hear it, new
perceptions are evoked. About the umpteenth time I hear it on the radio most
of the perceptions this tune is going to evoke have been evoked so the only
way it gets to stay my favorite song is be evoking static perceptions I
really value.
Or something like that.
[David]
If it can do these things then please explain how and how it is better than
the Metaphysics Pirsig has suggested.
[Case]
For starters it is a simpler formulation and it does not rely on multiple
undefined terms.
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 : Sun Nov 20 2005 - 02:52:59 GMT