From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Wed Apr 30 2003 - 13:39:59 BST
Hi Paul, Jonathan, All:
> I didn't want to go into a circular discussion but it
> turns out there is some interest and diverse opinion
> around the matter!
You bet. That's what makes this forum interesting.
> > "Lila is a living being composed of static patterns
> > of value with ability to
> > respond to DQ."
>
> So what defines a human being from other collections
> of static patterns of Quality is the ability to
> respond to Dynamic Quality
>
> I can't help but see this definition as a tautology:
>
> Q: What static patterns of Quality perceive and
> respond to Dynamic Quality?
> A: Human beings
> Q: What is a human being
> A: Static patterns of Quality that perceive and
> respond to Dynamic Quality
Many definitions are tautological. For example, "A triangle means a
plane figure enclosed by three straight lines." In an earlier post you
cited the example of Pirsig's definition of a rock as "a stable inorganic
pattern of Quality." So, using your tautological example:
Q. In the MOQ, what stable patterns occur at the inorganic level?
A. Rocks
Q. What is a rock?
A. A stable inorganic pattern of Quality.
> > Asking "what is it that perceives . . ." suggests
> > you're looking for a
> > physical "mechanism" (like science does) to explain
> > the phenomenon of
> > responding to DQ
>
> No, I'm not. What I'm looking for is clarity around,
> what is to me, the thing that is central to the whole
> metaphysics.
Thanks for correcting my erroneous assumption. Seeking "clarity" is a
bit harder to satisfy than finding a physical mechanism, for, like beauty,
clarity is in the eye of the beholder. Still, a most worthy goal.
> Pirsig has made a primary division of reality of
> static-Dynamic. To me, the relationship between the
> two aspects of reality could be the strongest or the
> weakest part of the whole metaphysics. Before anyone
> else says it, I'm not assuming a relationship has to
> be between two literally seperate 'objects', but where
> there is a metaphysical distinction there has to be a
> relationship e.g. Waves have a relationship to the
> ocean.
>
> Subject-object metaphysics carved up the world in a
> way that cut out so much clarity from our
> understanding of actual experience by never resolving
> the relationship between the two aspects. In ZMM,
> Pirsig resolves the relationship by correctly denying
> that the division exists outside of the metaphysics,
> but now he has made a metaphysical division of his
> own. I'm just looking at it closely.
>
> Now, Pirsig makes statements about the relationship
> such as 'Static quality emerges in the wake of Dynamic
> Quality' and 'Unless they [static patterns] are
> altered by Dynamic Quality..' which implies that DQ
> simply creates and alters SQ.
>
> Okay, that's a clear relationship, but then he throws
> in the 'static patterns can't perceive or respond to
> Dynamic Quality by themselves' statement. So it
> follows that the relationship is limited to living
> beings?
>
> Interesting.
>
> Now it turns out it's not living beings, it's now only
> human beings? And it's down to our intellectual
> capability at that?
>
> If it's now an intellectual thing, what about Lila?
> :'..intellectually she's nowhere, but Dynamically...Ah
> that's the one to watch.'
>
> Intellectually nowhere but 'Dynamic'?
That "intellectually she's nowhere" statement is a bugaboo that has
come up before. Some interpret it to mean Lila has no capacity
whatsoever to "manipulate language derived symbols" (Pirsig's definition
of intellect) which would make Lila a blithering idiot. Obviously she can
think and speak. Pirsig's hyperbolic phrase was simply meant to
dramatize the differences in level dominance in Lila's "being."
> I haven't come to any fixed conclusions yet, I don't
> feel clear enough to do that. Okay, perhaps I haven't
> spent the same amount of time working these things
> through yet as others on the forum, but that's one of
> the reasons I'm here.
I join others in saying, "We're glad you're hear."
> > To say "living beings are no different from
> > inanimate things" is
> > misleading to say the least.
>
> To you perhaps, and at first glance maybe, but I've
> given Wim's response a lot of thought and there is
> something in what he is saying. If you follow the
> implications of the MoQ all the way through.. One for
> another post though.
I look forward to it.
> > I agree with Bo that at this point in evolution,
> > only humans can respond to DQ.
>
> The 'at this point in evolution' does add clarity to
> Pirsig's statement. However, I recall watching a
> documentary about new signs of life evolving in the
> depths of the ocean that appeared to be surviving by
> breathing sulphuric gases coming from the earth's core
> as that was all that was available to 'breathe'.
>
> I'm not big on biology, but something about humans
> being the only form of life that can evolve now?
As far as I know, yes. However, there's a biologist who has contributed
to the forum in the past who would know better than I. Perhaps he'll read
this (Jonathan) and respond. For others here who have speculated
recently that evolution is still happening at every level, a few examples
would help solidify their case. Has anyone ever witnessed a new
species being created?
Platt
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 Apr 30 2003 - 14:51:02 BST