[MD] Betternes - 4 levels of!

Mon Nov 8 13:21:57 PST 2010

LILA'S Child Mc Watt's impression on keeping
             Quality free of concepts page 284

"Previous intellectual constructions of time up to the 20th century
were absolute, that is to say, people thought that when bodies moved
or forces acted there was no affect on space or time. Einstein’s theory
of general relativity showed this wasn’t true and that time did in fact
have an independent existence, as Hawking says on page 38 of A
Brief History of Time: “…In general relativity it became meaningless
Lila's Child
285
to talk about space and time as being outside the limits of the
universe.”
The MOQ says all of reality flows from Dynamic Quality and that
everything we perceive is some type of (temporary) static pattern.
This means that space-time evolved as an early static inorganic
pattern along with the laws of physics and the particles they produced.
This means that space-time itself is a static pattern that will one day
dissolve back into Dynamic Quality. This is consistent with the Big
Bang view of the evolution of the universe because this view states
that space-time was created by the Big Bang and evolved as the
structure of space and time that we now experience everyday.
Pirsig had the following to say on the above (in a letter addressed
to me on October 6th 1997). It is especially important to note where
he points out the part where I mention in my paper that the Dynamic
aspect of time as being a “concept of intuition” is not strictly correct.
He says: “What Northrop says is correct but I wouldn’t call it a
Dynamic aspect. It’s important to keep all ‘concepts’ out of Dynamic
Quality. Concepts are always static. Once they get into Dynamic
Quality they’ll overrun it and try to present it as some kind of a
concept itself. I think it’s better to say that time is a static
intellectual
concept that is one of the very first to emerge from Dynamic Quality.
That keeps Dynamic Quality concept free. "end.

-------------------------------------------------------

Comment Adrie.
The chance that Anthony can back this up with Pirsig's
correspondence is about 99,98 %, but i could be wrong.

2010/11/8 Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net>

>
> Greetings, Platt --
>
>
>
>  Hi Mark, All:
>>
>> Dynamic Quality isn't concept free. Once you name something,
>> it becomes a concept. But it's a concept like "ineffable" is a concept
>> -- pointing to something that cannot be defined.  And that leaves
>> intellect impotent. Intellect can only deal with defined terms. Pirsig
>> admitted as much.  But, he said go ahead anyway: "Getting drunk
>> and picking up bar-ladies and writing metaphysics is a part of life."
>> (Lila, 5)  So, yes. Even though we can't think about DQ, go ahead
>> and think about it - another paradox illustrating critical thinking's
>> feet of clay.
>>
>
> I realize that you respect Pirsig's philosophy and feel obliged to follow
> his precepts to the letter.  However, Pirsig called his thesis the
> "Metaphysics of Quality", and a metaphysical exposition should properly
> include both an epistemology (to explain how we know) and an ontology (to
> explain what we experience).  Without theoretical support for these
> components, a philosophy is merely a euphemistic paradigm or, as some regard
> the MoQ, an anological perspective of reality.   One might as well say, as
> Marsha often has, "Everything is analogy".  I don't know about you, Platt,
> but that's not my idea of a metaphysical concept.
>
> Also, I have to disagree that "once you name something, it becomes a
> concept."  If I name the "quadratic equation" to you, does it become a
> concept?  Is "antidisestablishmentarianism" a concept?  Is even the simple
> noun "Quality" a concept?
>
> In a previous post to Mark, I distinguished "concept" from "conception" in
> this fashion:
>
>  A "concept" must be defined in words in order to be conveyed to others.
>> (That's why metaphysics is "nothing but definitions," as Prisig
>> complained.)
>> But a "conception" is one's conceptual understanding, whether it is set in
>> words or equations, analogized, or merely described.  This, I submit, is
>> what
>> we are after.  The rest is typically philosophology, opinion, polemics, or
>> anecdotal "what I read last night" commentary.
>>
>
> If we intend to expand our understanding of philosophy and metaphysics, it
> seems to me we need to do it conceptually, rather than just throwing words
> around as so much  poetic metaphor.  Even a conception that seems
> indefinable can be communicated as a principle or functionally described.
> I'm reminded once again of Cusa's First Principle: the 'not-other'.  It's
> only the hyphenated conjunction of two simple words, but it expresses his
> conception that the primary source (however you choose to name it) is an
> undifferentiated whole.  Meister Eckhart's concept of "total IS-ness" and
> the 'ex nihilo' principle also effectively convey related concepts.
>
> More typically, a metaphysical conception requires a number of postulates,
> the author's specially defined terms, and a logical rational to support the
> overall concept as a cogent theory.  I side with Mark on this issue.
> Ridiculing the critical thinking that is necessary for metaphysical
> exposition is a lame excuse for intellectual oversight, in my opinion.
>
> Essentially speaking,
> Ham
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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/md/archives.html
>

-- 
parser