[MD] SOLAQI, Kant's TITs, chaos, and the S/I distinction

[MarshaV]

>
> >Laird:
> >On DQ / Chaos:
> >
> >The sensation I've got from Pirsig's writing is that he does not like
> >equating DQ with chaos... but ultimately the two terms point at the same
> >thing - absolute undefined potentiality. To me it seems a choice of the
> >"glasses" we use to filter the view - it's called DQ when wearing our
> >"MOQ/Good is a noun" glasses and called chaos when wearing our
> >"SOM/value-free" glasses. I've been looking for a show-stopping
> >distinction between the two but so far nothing has stuck for me. With
> >both, static stuff emerges from dynamic stuff. Quality is not always
> >"good" - it's a spectrum from the highest of high quality to the lowest
> >of low quality. In Pirsig's English class, there were high-quality
> >papers and low-quality papers, but both emerged from "nothing/nowhere"
> >and landed on a sheet of paper. So where's the beef? I think the word
> >"chaos" has a crappy connotation but I don't see any serious difference.
> >
> >Further into the thought experiment - DQ and chaos are both exhaustive
> >potentialities. Let's assume based on Pirsig's connotations (inorganic
> >triumphs over chaos/etc, intellectual stretches toward DQ/etc) that
> >chaos is an infinite amount of black dots on an endless plane and DQ is
> >an infinite amount of white dots. As I've repeated in too many ways to
> >make for decent essay-writing, both are exhaustive, infinite, so each
> >must be everywhere on the plain at the same time. The plane looks like a
> >massive sea of grey on and on to infinity... So why distinguish between
> >chaos and DQ? They could just as easily be the same and be grey with the
> >potentiality of being black, white, or any shade inbetween. When a
> >distinction is created, it seems like semantics in order to avoid the
> >whole potentiality factor, which is at the heart of both chaos and DQ.
>
>
>Marsha:
>I found this explanation very satisfying, especially the phrases
>"absolute undefined potentiality" and "static stuff emerges from
>dynamic stuff".  I think that is all you can state.  Dynamic Quality
>(DQ) is a clearer term.  Chaos has a connotation that is too negative.
>
>To think that either the 'emerging' or 'stuff' is somehow dependent
>on 'balance',  'coherence' or 'sweet spot'  is a mistake.  There may
>at times be a correlation, but not necessarily.  Comfort may be
>increased by this assumption, but that is besides the point.

Marsha:
First, I am agreeing with Laird that DQ and chaos are two terms for 
"absolute undefined potentiality", and that DQ is the more elegant 
term.  This would eliminate the ability of chaos to orbit around 
DQ.  They are the same thing.

Denying a dependence on balance does not eliminate either DQ or SQ 
from the process.  It just states that the relationship does not 
require any kind of balance.

The "sweet spot" thing suggests to me some type of peak moment 
analogy.  There are some pretty nasty static patterns of value.  Were 
they necessarily created at some "sweet spot" or peak moment?  I 
don't think so.

Coherence?  Do we know of any static pattern of value that is 
sticking together for a logical reason?  Can we define the boundaries 
of a spov to make such an observation?  I say no.  And even static 
patterns of value change.

What do I think causes a spov to latch?  Simply Quality.  As Laird 
also stated above, "it's a spectrum from the highest of high quality 
to the lowest of low quality."  I think the most intense portions of 
the spectrum latch.  The things that are most likely to impact our 
consciousness are things that are the lowest of the low quality, or 
things that are the highest of the high quality.  Repetition could 
also intensify quality on either end of that spectrum.

That's my explanation as best I can state it.

Marsha