From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Sun Sep 28 2003 - 13:49:25 BST
Hi Scott
I came to ZMM and Lila with a set of views
that I found in agreement with Pirsig and have
not really gained any ideas from Pirsig. I did
not pick up this intellect on the fourth level problem.
I naturally assumed that any such reference had
to be oonly about human culture/intelligence as
a language based phenomenon. I saw the ontological
status given to Quality and Value as having to imply
a form of intelligence prior to human cultural
intelligence. Mainly I saw Pirsig as able to explain
very difficult philosophical issues and problems
in a impressively non-jargon way. The use of the term
quality works wonderfully against the term quantity
and against the distinction betwen primary and secondary
qualities. I also feel that reason is a bad term becuase
you start to look like Hegel. I really think that the terms
freedom and opennes need far higher status. The cosmos
is clearly an impressive achievement, but equally its contradictions
and openness speak against both design and omnipresent reason.
I think it is more of a difficult struggle than using the term reason
implies.
I am sure I want to go ion the same direction as you Scott, but not too
far, if we end up at Hegel we have lost opennes and freedom and creativity.
I also like Quality=experience. Our world is utterly human, our only world
is this world of a human quality, a human experience, full of everything
though
it is.
regards
DM
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott R" <jse885@spinn.net>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2003 3:03 AM
Subject: Re: MD The final solution or new frustration.
> David M,
>
> I agree with all this (I think) except for one thing: I see no need in it
> for the Q. What you are describing here is like Coleridge's "two forces of
> one Power" -- and I'll take your word for it that Schelling said something
> similar. Now I agree that whatever that Power is, it includes Quality, but
> that is not all it includes. Overall, I think Reason or Intelligence is a
> better name than Quality (and there many other names: Love, Wisdom, etc.),
> but I prefer Reason since it more easily lends itself to relation with our
> own reason as a pale version ("through a glass darkly") of Reason.
>
> But regardless, the MOQ doesn't allow it, since it places intellect and
> reason at the fourth *static* level.
>
> - Scott
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David MOREY" <us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk>
> To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
> Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2003 1:14 PM
> Subject: Re: MD The final solution or new frustration.
>
>
> > Scott/Platt
> >
> > I think Scott's discomfort about MOQ can
> > perhaps be overcome if we start to see
> > Quality as a more inclusive concept, so inclusive in fact
> > that it becomes a non-concept as it has no other.
> > When we start to talk about SQ and DQ as capable
> > of explaining the whole cosmos we are handling two
> > very loaded concepts. What is DQ? I take it as being
> > related to the unstoppable flow of reality through
> > our experience. I take it as embodied in the fullness
> > of possibilty that is spread out ahead of the present
> > finite reality. What is SQ? It allows the cosmos
> > to be finite and actual, it is not a cosmos of unique
> > dissipating energy, transforming and transforming like
> > a firework. The cosmos leaves traces that fill up the present.
> > Patterns repeat. This is the very oddest of odds. DQ implies
> > freedom, it seems to imply creativity. SQ implies limitation,
> > it is a sacrifice of DQ, where SQ is DQ has withdrawn.
> > Sq says, something new -No, the same again. Why is this
> > happening. DQ is not limited. DQ can make the move
> > A or B or C or D. Does DQ choose? How does DQ choose?
> > Can DQ see the future? Does DQ consider the consequences
> > of its choices? Does it value A more or B or C or D?
> > What is without limit surely has choice? Or is it a cosmos of chaos?
> > The anthropic principle questions this. I think few of us would
> > consider design. But what of intelligence? What is intelligence?
> > Intelligence implies choice/timing/intervention. It also implies
> > knoweldge of SQ, it also implies that for DQ the future is perceived.
> > Perceiving the future means being able to look into the future, to be
> > able to say that there are many possible futures, that there is future
> > A or B or C or D, etc. Choice actualises one future and abandons
> > or sacrifices all the other possible futures. Choice moves through
> > all possible futures and this movement is what we call actual reality.
> >
> > I suggest that Quality is SQ and DQ it is also intelligent and it also
> > demonstrates agency and this implies activity and values.
> > The sacrifice by Quality of DQ to SQ is what creates time and
> > finite existence. It is the sacrifice of DQ to SQ that causes the
> > forgetting of DQ, the hiding of DQ. We start to see everything
> > more and more in terms of SQ, hence we march our way to SOM.
> > We get hold of SQ, we become masters of SQ, we manipulate
> > and technologies SQ. We even think we can explain DQ in terms of
> > SQ. But originally, SQ and DQ are One. Subject and object are One.
> > As for human being, how clearly we take a ride with DQ, how clearly
> > we are da-sein, being-the-there, at this moment in time, in
> > this situation of static patterns, and how clearly we are pressing
> > on, pulled by the future, embodied by our projects, pulling the future
> > towards
> > us, one future pulled towards us, all the other possible futures
> sacrificed.
> > And where we are now, the present situation caused by all the possible
> > futures that have beedn sacrificed. Situation=limitation=the sacrifice
of
> > in the past of the possible to create the finite/definite yet open
> present.
> > We are born in a present, in a situation now of our own chosing, but
> > DQ has already chosen for us. But DQ does not abandon us, she
> > picks us up at birth, she is full of possibilities for us. Perhaps
> > when we ask about all the SQ that already occupies our world
> > she whispers in our ear. As for intelligence, most of the cosmos
> > was achieved without human intelligence, perhaps the human component
> > of intelligence is not so large, what we like to call our intelligence
is
> > not so uniquely ours, or perhaps we should associate what we are
> > less with the static patterns of our physical being? To be what we are,
> > is just to surf a certain flow of being around a moving point, in time
> > and space, a process of interplay between SQ and DQ, a certain
> > collapse of the wave function (i.e. many possibles becoming an
> > actual event) to produce the event of a human life within the event of
> > the cosmos.
> >
> > regards
> > David Morey
> >
> >
>
>
>
> 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 : Sun Sep 28 2003 - 13:48:58 BST