MARCO TO ELEPHANT ON THE STATIC / DYNAMIC ISSUE
Dear Elephant
(I knew I had to keep off MD..... :-)
> I'm sorry for confusing things by posting twice on the same
> thread, but this one's mostly addressed to Marco's comments,
> mostly as an invitation to expand on some suggsetive remarks
> that I'm not sure I've understood.
Well, I often am not sure I've understood myself :-)
>
> MARCO WROTE TO ANDREA:
> > But there's another important point to consider: "language", logic,
> > science, metaphysics are part of the same reality they want
> > to grasp.... so when they try to get closer to reality, they evolve,
> > and the result is a reality modification. My point about
> > the language/reality mismatch is that it's a false problem,
> > as language is primarily a real entity itself. According to the
> > MOQ, the *best* metaphysical division is static/dynamic. To
> > say that reality is static, or that it is dynamic, it's the same
> > mistake of considering one only aspect.
>
> ELEPHANT:
> Do excuse me for butting in and adding my
> two-penny-worth here. Firstly it
> seems to me that one disagreement you've identified
> concerns words only. No one is saying that the static entities
> are unreal, just that, real as they
> are, they are not real in quite the way that the dynamic
> reality is real.
I think I'm stating that the static entities are unreal... as well as
dynamic entities are unreal... all entities are simultaneously
dynamic and static.
> Secondly I agree that langauge can sometimes
> form part of the reality we want to grasp, not just that
> with which we grasp it. But I'm not yet sure where you
> are going with this fact. Do please expand.
I'm not an expert of physics, but, for what I know of it, I think it's
not very different from the uncertainty principle of Heisenberg. It's
impossible to know both the dynamic and the static nature of reality.
The more you investigate the static nature of reality, the more you lose
its dynamic nature. And vice versa. Intellect, like the observer of the
quantum physics, is involved in reality, and contributes to its nature.
Talking about reality modifies reality.
> MARCO:
> > Language has a double nature: it is statically, and interacts
> > dynamically. Just like every *real* entity, it interacts
> > with reality (dynamically, in the Q event) and then translates
> > the experience according to static patterns. The result are
> > new real entities (ideas, concepts and so on....). Language is not
> > purely static: actually, it modifies reality and it evolves at the
> > same time. In this, I don't see huge differences between
> > language and biologic living beings. At every
> > level of experience, the process is always to evolve towards
> > excellence.
>
> ELEPHANT:
> The fact that something evolves does nothing to make
> it dynamic as opposed to static (this seems to be a general
> confusion, alteast, *I* think it is a confusion).
I'm just stating that everything evolves thanks to its dynamic nature.
> Evolving entities are ones that change over time. But change
> is antithetical to the dynamic, because the dynamic is just that
> which does not have a static identity for long enough for there to
> be any 'that' which changes.
Here I don't understand. It seems we are using the term "dynamic" for
diverse concepts. IMO evolution is a dynamic process. My static nature
is in opposition to evolution.
> Therefore if evolving entities change, this must be because they
> count as static at any given time, and a static series of
> static identities looked at over time. Just as there is a static
> concept that is meant by 'seagull' right now, even though we
> know that seagulls are evolving.
Static does not mean fixed. Static means stable. The concept of seagull
has a stable nature and a dynamic nature simultaneously. I think the
concept of seagull changes, not diversely from the biologic seagull. The
evolution of scientific beliefs is a fact. If you say that evolution is
a series of static *snapshots* I could agree (at least I'd say it's a
good intellectual trick), but every snapshot (every single seagull, or
every single concept of seagull) interacts dynamically with Quality, so
it is static and dynamic simultaneously.
> MARCO:
> > Any reality/language division is a door opened to the subject/object
> > division.
>
> ELEPHANT:
> Why?
[...]
> I'd like to be told why the separation of language from
> the dynamically real is a SOMist point of view, given that
> neither language nor the dynamically
> real is a subject or an object.
Well, I could be wrong, but I see an analogy. I (subject) use a language
to define reality (object). If I consider my language as a separated
entity from its target, IMO I'm trying to be objective. Note that I
think that S/O Logic has a great worth. For many intellectual activities
it is necessary and useful. Actually, one theory here (by Bodvar) is
that S/O Logic is intellect itself (I don't subscribe to this one, but
it's an evidence of the importance of SOL). I just want to show that it
has limits, and it can't be considered the best solution in every
intellectual context. The Dynamic / Static split is a different way to
divide reality. It shows better the *why?* , while the ordinary Subject
/ Object split shows better the *how?*.
> ELEPHANT:
> I think when Pirsig is talking about the static he talking about
> the discrete and conceptualised (the linguistic) and that talking
> about the dynamic he is talking about the continuous and
> preconceptual (the prelinguistic).
Pirsig:
<< [In Lila] The quality that was referred to in Zen and the Art of
Motorcycle Maintenance can be subdivided into Dynamic Quality and static
quality. Dynamic Quality is a stream of quality events going on and on
forever, always at the cutting edge of the present. But in the wake of
this cutting edge are static patterns of value. These are memories,
customs and patterns of nature.>>
(SODaV paper).
Firstly, not only the conceptualized (intellectual) is sQ. According to
the MOQ, sQ has a role throughout the four levels. Secondly, let's
remember that all what exists (here and now) is at the cutting edge of
the present (where else?). So DQ is here and now interacting, while sQ
is here and now stabilizing. The only reality is Quality. D and s are
attributes of reality.
tks
Marco.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
