[MD] DQ/sq as WATER/ice

[David Morey]

Hi all MoQers, Marsha, DMB

Yes water is static, ice is static but the change from one to another is 
dynamic,
and in a sense difficult to analyse, think Zeno here. And of course this 
refers
to SQ that we experience and SQ that we may wish to understand as analysable
as patterns that transcend experience, i.e. what we might want to call 
objects.
I guess I see subject-object analysis as a second order form of analysis,
making sense of science and history over and above MOQ, where MOQ is
given the priority of making sense of our experience prior to any analysis
of reality in terms of subjects and objects that looks at evolution outside 
of the
context of experience and in a sense subject-object analysis is theoretical 
and
non-empirical as it postulates things as transcending experience, i.e. the 
tree
in the forest can fall without anyone being there to experience it, and the 
cosmos
evolved before human beings were around to experience it too. Is that 
controversial,
how does Pirsig see subject-object analysis in the context of the MOQ would
you say?

Yes water and ice are concepts about physical states, but they are also 
something
we experience. For me our metaphysics, derived from experience, should tie 
in with
any theories we then go on to have about physical things or physical states 
that
transcend our experience (ever tried adding Kant to your analysis DMB?).
DMB your points always seem to me to narrow my proposals and thereby exclude 
them
whereas I am trying to broaden out the MOQ to make contact with wider terms
and approaches to show how the MOQ makes contact with them and helps to
illuminate them (I hope and feel). Maybe this reflects the difference 
between
someone wanting to analyse down and someone wanting to connect ideas.

all the best
David M

-----Original Message----- 
From: Jan-Anders Andersson
Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2013 9:48 AM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] DQ/sq as WATER/ice

Hello All

Anyone who reads Lila carefully will notice that all through the story it is 
very much about how things are related to how water is moving, but I don't 
think RMP used water as an analogy for DQ.

J A

30 mar 2013 kl. 22:30 skrev david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>:

>
> Dan said to Marsha:
>
> I guess I don't see where you're going with this. Water isn't distinct 
> from ice. Water IS ice. It is simply in a solid state rather than a 
> liquid. Inorganic patterns like water change structure according to the 
> ambient surroundings. Think iron: its melting point is much higher than 
> water. But it is still iron in either state.
> On the other hand, static quality is distinct from Dynamic Quality by 
> definition. Static quality emerges from Dynamic Quality. To say 'the 
> fundamental nature of static quality is Dynamic Quality' seems confusing 
> rather than enlightening, in my opinion. Isn't the fundamental nature of 
> static quality its definition?
>
>
> dmb says:
> That's right. I think Lucy is use of the McGilchrist quote only undermines 
> the MOQ's central distinction. "Crazy" is such a strong word. Let's just 
> say she's conceptually promiscuous. It's so fuzzy you can't really make 
> anything out AND it invites an all-too-easy materialistic 
> misinterpretation of the static/Dynamic split, wherein metaphysical terms 
> are inappropriately used to describe physical states. You can see very 
> common error in David Morey's response to that quote...
>
>
> David Morey said:
> I love this quote. And it is when we experience changes like ice changing 
> to water then it becomes pretty clear what DQ is all about, and that water 
> is more dynamic than ice, and that is more static than water. ...
>
>
> dmb says:
> Water and ice are okay as analogies, maybe. But if static quality is 
> everything in the encyclopedia and both of them (water and ice) are 
> definable and both of them are included in the encyclopedia, then they're 
> both static in the MOQ's sense of the word. Pirsig says that Dynamic 
> Quality is the cutting of experience and static quality is conceptual, 
> ideas, abstractions, thoughts, the products of reflection, etc.. I don't 
> see how it could make any sense to say that water is the cutting edge of 
> experience or how it could make any sense to say that ice is a product of 
> reflection. I mean, this is a matter of confusing the metaphysics of 
> substance with the metaphysics of Quality.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Water is distinct from ice, but in the ice cube it is present: not as a 
> fly might be trapped there, but _in the very ice_.  And yet when the ice 
> cube is gone, the water remains.  Although we see water as ice, we do so 
> not because it is there separately, to be seen from behind or apart from 
> the cube." (Iain McGilchrist, 'The MASTER and his EMISSARY: The Divided 
> Brain and the Making of the Western World', p. 452).
>
> 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
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