From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Mon Sep 15 2003 - 19:17:44 BST
Hi Scott
In terms of behaviour do we not make new choices
when there is no static pattern to follow, either
biological (hot -jump away) social (I have to go
to work today) of personal (I never drink tea)
and dynamic choices when we have to create to
handle something new. Static choice patterns seem
to become, habits, unconscious forces, or instincts.
Perhaps it goes further and becomes laws. If we
start with nothing and try to explain the world in terms
of dynamic/static do we not have to understand the static
as originating in the dynamic, so that the dynamic repeats
and makes the original a pattern. Therefore it is fundamentally wrong to
look at freedom/dynamic choice
as dependent on static patterns (such a s mind as an
epiphenomenon of matter), we should think of dynamic as pouring out static
patterns, and then these patterns,
e.g. forces,laws,atoms,molecules,life,social patterns, are
available for dynamic activity on new levels to occur.
The One is on the margin between the dynamic and
potential and open future and the past that has happened,
that is non-dynamic, that is repeating, that is determined,
in the way a dice can roll 1-6, until you roll it and
it is then determined on one particular side. Being a person is always
rolling and always laying down the results of various rolls. Between future
and past is the
edge we call 'now'.
Regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott R" <jse885@spinn.net>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2003 8:33 PM
Subject: Re: MD Dealing with S/O
> 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
>
>
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 : Mon Sep 15 2003 - 19:23:29 BST