[MD] Chance v. Dynamic Quality

[Joseph Maurer]

On Thursday 12 March 2009 Andre writes to Š..and all,

> Krimel says:
> I agree completely here. It seems to me that Platt and dmb are
> attempting to read choice and intention into even the inorganic
> level. I don't see how this differs from theology in the least.
> Platt sneers a chance but at least,acknowledges some kind of
> vague theological convictions. Dave, just pretends that whatever
> it is he is saying, it is not theology.
> 
> Andre:
> A few posts ago I quoted Pirsig at lenght in the light of the
> chemistry professor analogy.
> First things first: DQ is not 'chance', nor 'intent' , nor
> 'poof'' ,nor anything teleological in the theological sense. It
> is the undifferentiated aesthetic continuum.
> Secondly. positing a 'thread' as the 'ineffable' before anything
> else..., positing this from growing up/and reflecting on 20th
> Century, American society (and history in general), Pirsig saw a
> morality, a something towards betterness, a something towards
> freedom from, and he called this  Quality.
 
IMO Pirsig also called the process toward ³a something toward betterness,²
evolution in a hierarchy of four levels, MOQ.  For myself I prefer an
analogy to the tonal octave of seven levels.
 
> This can only be done in hindsight. Because, as Pirsig says
> himself, all our intellectualisations after the Q-experience are
> based on analogues, memories and memories, analogues etc etc.
> Again I ask, how do you tell the brujo, be it photon. atom,cell,
> human being, intellectual pattern)  from its counterpart? I am
> sure there have been countless counterparts but the ones that
> have 'survived' are what we have and see/experience ( perhaps not
> appreciate [low quality] but that is beside the point).
 
How can Dq, the undefined, participate in mentation?  IMO Mentation proposes
an order in existence of evolution and an order in manifestation of a
morality based on evolution in which DQ does participate.

Joe    
 
> Pirsig also stating that the MoQ starts with sentience, can be understood in
> the way that pre-sentience responses to DQ followed strict sets of, what we
> have identified as 'laws'( of quantum physics [mathematics] of physics etc),
> this changes with sentients , our freedom to interpret DQ became greater (
> the strict laws of perish or survive do not apply so much anymore), it did
> not simply entail a choice between survival or not...we are far more
> advanced that this.
> What I am getting at is that DQ does't do anything. WE respond to it as we
> see fit and this depends on our static patterns; our vested interests, how
> much we have to lose or gain in our isolated psychic cells, and the sizes of
> our bankaccounts, and the celebrity/or not connections we have with God,
> Buddha, Paul Newman or the man/woman next door. That makes the difference..
> We have the intellectual choice, but are very much torn between choices
> based on biological and or social patterns of value.
> 
> Bottom line is: the choice is ours, and DQ has no influence in/on this. It
> only suggests that we act morally, i.e in harmony.
> 
> For what it is worth.
> Andre
> 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/



On 3/12/09 12:18 PM, "Andre Broersen" <andrebroersen at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Krimel,Arlo,Platt dmb and all,
> 
> Krimel says:
> I agree completely here. It seems to me that Platt and dmb are attempting to
> read choice and intention into even the inorganic level. I don't see how
> this differs from theology in the least. Platt sneers a chance but at least
> acknowledges some kind of vague theological convictions. Dave, just pretends
> that whatever it is he is saying, it is not theology.
> 
> Andre:
> A few posts ago I quoted Pirsig at lenght in the light of the chemistry
> professor analogy.
> First things first: DQ is not 'chance', nor 'intent' , nor 'poof'' ,nor
> anything teleological in the theological sense. It is the undifferentiated
> aesthetic continuum.
> Secondly. positing a 'thread' as the 'ineffable' before anything else...,
> positing this from growing up/and reflecting on 20th Century, American
> society (and history in general), Pirsig saw a morality, a something towards
> betterness, a something towards freedom from, and he called this  Quality..
> 
> This can only be done in hindsight. Because, as Pirsig says himself, all our
> intellectualisations after the Q-experience are based on analogues, memories
> and memories, analogues etc etc.
> Again I ask, how do you tell the brujo, be it photon. atom,cell, human
> being, intellectual pattern)  from its counterpart? I am sure there have
> been countless counterparts but the ones that have 'survived' are what we
> have and see/experience ( perhaps not appreciate [low quality] but that is
> beside the point).
> 
> Pirsig also stating that the MoQ starts with sentience, can be understood in
> the way that pre-sentience responses to DQ followed strict sets of, what we
> have identified as 'laws'( of quantum physics [mathematics] of physics etc),
> this changes with sentients , our freedom to interpret DQ became greater (
> the strict laws of perish or survive do not apply so much anymore), it did
> not simply entail a choice between survival or not...we are far more
> advanced that this.
> What I am getting at is that DQ does't do anything. WE respond to it as we
> see fit and this depends on our static patterns; our vested interests, how
> much we have to lose or gain in our isolated psychic cells, and the sizes of
> our bankaccounts, and the celebrity/or not connections we have with God,
> Buddha, Paul Newman or the man/woman next door. That makes the difference..
> We have the intellectual choice, but are very much torn between choices
> based on biological and or social patterns of value.
> 
> Bottom line is: the choice is ours, and DQ has no influence in/on this. It
> only suggests that we act morally, i.e in harmony.
> 
> For what it is worth.
> Andre
> 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/