[MD] on the radio

[ian glendinning]

Sorry, correction. Paul's term is "dependent arising",
I mixed up the two halves of the term
... the arising is the analogue of emergence
... the dependency is the analogue of causation.

Ian


On 12/1/06, ian glendinning <psybertron at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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/
> >
>