Hi Glenn (and Marco and Elephant),
ROGER:
It is the static concept of a rock that is created. And of course, this is
a
concept that includes such qualities as hardness, grayness, flecks of dirt
and several million years old carbon.
GLENN:
In MOQ terms, what you describe as a "static concept of a rock" is what
Pirsig calls a "static pattern of inorganic value" and what most other
people would call a rock. What does this loaded word "concept", that
Pirsig doesn't use, convey?
ROG
"Substance is a derived concept." P120 of the paperback. Page 137 is devoted
in full to his detailed explanations of how we (babies in this case) derive
static patterns known as subjects and objects from experience through a
deductive process. He also uses it in a roundabout way on P417- 8 when he
concurs with James' division that concepts are static and discontinuous and
that reality is dynamic and flowing. I am sure there are other uses as well.
What it conveys is that the map is different than the terrain, and that
static, discrete, simplified rocks are a concept. Certainly the concept
references a specific subset of pure experience. That is its value.
ROGER:
The inorganic level does not predate humans....in fact it does not predate
Pirsig.
GLENN:
You mean the inorganic level doesn't predate the book "Lila", because
that's where he coined the term "inorganic level", right?
ROG:
Yes. Just as the idea of gravity does not predate Sir Isaak.
GLENN:
So, put another
way, the "concept of the inorganic level" is just about 10 years old now,
right? Surely you don't mean that the inorganic level (with all the rocks
that you can go and touch) is 10 years old, created by Pirsig himself, do
you??
ROG:
No I do not. That would indeed be silly. He just created and applied a new
static concept referencing this set of experience.
ROGER:
It [the inorganic level] is a static concept used to
simplify and condense a huge range of dynamic reality into an easy to use
package.
GLENN:
As an umbrella term, a kind of shorthand, sure. But there you go again
with "concept". Above, your "concept of a rock" *was* a rock. Do you mean
here that the "concept of the inorganic level" is the "inorganic level"?
The confusion this is causing me must be important.
ROG:
Hmmmm this is getting tricky now. Let me attempt a cautious explanation. I
would say that any concepts you or I have of the inorganic level are indeed
concepts of the inorganic level. Reality is dynamic and flowing and
infinitely more complex than any static mental shorthand that might be
applied to it ( to reality). But the shorthand works marvelously anyways --
indeed largely due to its ability to identify and create simple yet
meaningful patterns. When we use the term "inorganic level" we are using a
common, shared concept that is helpful for us to reference certain
experiences or aspects of reality.
ROGER:
The MOQ does not contradict science, evolution is not wrong, and
Pirsig can build a coherent metaphysics where reality (DQ) is defined as
dynamic and flowing and concepts and patterns are derived from and out of
this reality.
GLENN:
I'm glad you see this is important.
ROG:
Yea, otherwise the MOQ would be daffy.
Does this explain it?
Rog
PS -- I am just now reading through Marco's opus. I will say, Marco, that you
were one of the few that "Stood and got Counted" a few years ago on this
topic that I agreed with. Denis may have stood along with us too. It was a
long time ago. (I just remember David B and Bo double-teaming me with the
label that I was a mystic solipsist.) My guess is you and I can come to a
consensus on this current issue too. Eventually we usually do.
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
