[MD] on the radio

[ian glendinning]

OK, sorry, just that one stream, hardly call it a sentence  .... ?

That was nothing contentious, a brief summary of Pirsig, I would have thought.

(The other stuff was much more interesting, going forward ...)

Anyway clarification inserted ...

On 12/1/06, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> Ian previously said:
> ...What Pirsig brings to this
[IG] Here "this" is the rest of the subject matter I was discussing
with David M, about mechanisms of evolution, inlcuding various froms
of emergence.

> is the emphasis on the levels
[IG] MOQ describes the workings of the world in levels.

> and the dynamism,
[IG] MOQ places Dynamic quality at the leading edge of experience of
reality in that world

> and effectively warns against reification - treating "objects"
> that inhabit your current level as necessarily the most significant
> realities to worry about
[IG] MOQ bases the entire static levels / dynamic quality framework
around quality as the primary reality with objects (and subjects) as
subordinate. He says we make a mistake when we focus on "objects" as
the most important tangible reality, whatever level we are
considering.

> when you're looking to understand cause and effect
[IG] The main reason we want to understand the world better is to
better understand how it works, the consequences of the actions of
ourselves and others, - cause and effect in an everyday sense.

> - the qualitative, zen,
[IG] Pirsig draws attention to the parallel between his quality based
world-view and buddhist views, particularly, zen.

> recursive interplay of "emergent arising".
[IG] That's just me moving into my preferred metaphors for the net
result. Firstly that cause and effect is better thought of as
"emergent arising" - something Paul Turner has elaborated on at
length. Secondly that the dynamic "interplay" we know as DQ, is not
directional in any simple sense, but involves two-way interaction and,
because those interactions may cross levels, they can in fact be
recursive, (a la Hofstader, and Quine) leading to tuning or coherence
to use Mark's sweet-spot metaphor, strange attractors in chaos terms,
and the emergence of "things" not actually present in the original
dynamically interacting objects. (Understanding the "science" of those
effects was where I was trying to take the subject matter with David
M. And they're all subjects I expressed views about at length here and
in other contexts, as David M knows.)

I'd expected the rest of the mail to require more clarification.

Ian


>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get FREE company branded e-mail accounts and business Web site from
> Microsoft Office Live
> http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/mcrssaub0050001411mrt/direct/01/
>
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>