From: Scott R (jse885@spinn.net)
Date: Sun Sep 14 2003 - 20:33:18 BST
Platt,
[Scott prev:]> > But worse than this is that there is no creativity allowed
for me (or
> > for Shakespeare, for that matter), since all creativity, that is, the
> > production of new static patterns of value, is assigned to DQ. Thus, the
> > MOQ seems to be on a par with Calvinist predestination. While there is
> > some esoteric truth to this, I believe, I also believe it is not the
> > whole truth. The whole truth is that the little self *is* (and is not)
> > the Big Self, that our sense of freedom is and is not an illusion. The
> > MOQ only points to the "is". We need Coleridge/Barfield/Nishida to point
> > to "is *yet* is not".
>
[Platt:]> Considering the story of the brujo and his creative effect on Zuni
> society as well as the considerable amount of text in Lila devoted to
> radical idealists vs. degenerate hooligans, it's clear to me that the
> production of new static patterns is not "assigned to DQ" but rather to
> a static pattern's response to DQ. Without responses to DQ there's no
> creation, no change. DQ cannot do it alone. Both static and Dynamic are
> needed.
Yes. But my question is how something static can respond (more below).
>
> "By contrast the Metaphysics of Quality, also going back to square one,
> says that man is composed of static levels of patterns of evolution
> with a capability of response to Dynamic Quality." (Chap. 24)
>
> The little "self" is free to follow DQ or not. We have a choice.
Then it is both static and dynamic, which I have no problem with, but it
seems to me that calling the little self a set of SQ does. If DQ is
undefinable, it is not at all clear what following it can mean.
In the free-will vs determisnism dsicussion (ch. 12) Pirsig writes:
"In the Metaphysics of Quality this dilemma doesn't come up. To the extent
that one's behavior is controlled by static patterns of quality it is
without choice. But to the extent that one follows Dynamic Quality, which is
undefinable, one's behavior is free."
My question is who or what is this "one"? It is apparently something that
can be controlled by SQ or can follow DQ. That is, it seems to be in the
middle, neither one nor the other. Now I recognize that this critical
reading of mine is to some extent jumping on the necessity to put into words
something that is, at bottom, inexplicable. But it seems to me more
reasonable to say that what we have in this "one" is a recapitulation of the
MOQ basis: Quality as DQ/SQ, and not a set of SQ.
- Scott
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 Sep 14 2003 - 20:33:48 BST