Quoting Ron Kulp Sept 19th: >Thank you very much for the Turner/Roberts exchange it is much appreciated. >Your Matrix analogy is well noted,
I did have that mind. >This is what I see as the difficulty in applying MOQ >to scientific inquiry, MOQ really does not recognize its structure, it's >kinda like >trying to mesh a clock work system with hydraulics. Ant McWatt asks: Ron, could you further explain what you are trying to say here? Do you mean the "meshing" of SOM with the MOQ? >I will read over the exchange and comment if you are interested in helping >me >grapple with these concepts, or, better still if this trail has been blazed >before >a point in the right direction in the archives would be helpful also >(then I would'nt be rehashing the same stuff for you). I'd look for the correspondence between Bodvar Skutvik and Paul Turner about the SOLAQI (such as those posts from November 2005 pasted below). Best wishes, Anthony ======================================== >From : Paul Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent : 12 November 2005 09:09:13 To : <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject : MD FW: The intellectual level and rationality (reformatted) I agree with the recent suggestion by Rebecca Temmer that rationality is a good definition of the intellectual level. Predictably, I disagree with Bodvar that rationality and SOM are identical or even inextricable. I have long argued that there exists an 'eastern rationality' which is not dependent on the assumptions of a SOM and moreover I believe Pirsig considers the MOQ itself to be rational, or more accurately, in his words - an expansion of rationality itself. I offer the quotes below in support of my assertion. "What's emerging from the pattern of my own life is the belief that the crisis is being caused by the inadequacy of existing forms of thought to cope with the situation. It can't be solved by rational means because the rationality itself is the source of the problem. The only ones who're solving it are solving it at a personal level by abandoning 'square' rationality altogether and going by feelings alone. Like John and Sylvia here. And millions of others like them. And that seems like a wrong direction too. So I guess what I'm trying to say is that the solution to the problem isn't that you abandon rationality but that you expand the nature of rationality so that it's capable of coming up with a solution." [ZMM, p171] "[Phaedrus] did nothing for Quality or the Tao. What benefited was reason. He showed a way by which reason may be expanded to include elements that have previously been unassimilable and thus have been considered irrational." [ZMM, p264] "I want to show that that classic pattern of rationality can be tremendously improved, expanded and made far more effective through the formal recognition of Quality in its operation." [ZMM, p286] Here I think the "classic pattern of rationality" is a reference to something like a dualistic S/O rationality i.e. a rationality believed to bring the thinking subject into accurate correspondence with the independent objective world by establishing objective facts and the objective relationships between them. It is my contention that Pirsig wanted the MOQ to expand this conception of rationality by taking into account the relationship of quality to the putatively objective facts and relationships. "It's long past time to take a closer look at this qualitative preselection of facts which has seemed so scrupulously ignored by those who make so much of these facts after they are "observed." I think that it will be found that a formal acknowledgment of the role of Quality in the scientific process doesn't destroy the empirical vision at all. It expands it, strengthens it and brings it far closer to actual scientific practice." [ZMM, p290] "In a sense, the MOQ is an acceptance of this fact, that quality is here, and that if we can't explain it, you're not going to get rid of the quality. We have to adjust our system of explanation in such a way that we can incorporate quality into a rational system of thought." [Pirsig, AHP Lecture, 1993] "Quality is not going to go away and if our system of thought cannot comprehend what quality is and lay it out in a rational, orderly form then we must modify our whole system of thought to accommodate this existence of quality or value in our lives. The MOQ is that attempt to completely up-end and change the entire theory of the universe from a subject-object theory of the universe, which has existed in the past, to a value-centered universe in which suddenly you have a system of thought in which "quality" is a real, usable, rational term and in which no destruction is made to subjects and objects as they are conceived in our present metaphysics." [Pirsig, AHP Lecture, 1993] With respect to the "attempt" described above I think LILA is full of ways in which a metaphysics built around a concept of indefinite 'Dynamic Quality' can be used in a rational way. E.g. "Because of his different metaphysical orientation Phaedrus saw instantly that those seemingly trivial, unimportant, "spur of the moment" decisions that Mayr was talking about, the decisions which directed the progress of evolution are, in fact, Dynamic Quality itself." [LILA, p165] "In the past empiricists have tried to keep science free from values. Values have been considered a pollution of the rational scientific process. But the Metaphysics of Quality makes it clear that the pollution is from threats to science by static lower levels of evolution: static biological values such as the biological fear that threatened Jenner's smallpox experiment; static social values such as the religious censorship that threatened Galileo with the rack. The Metaphysics of Quality says that science's empirical rejection of biological and social values is not only rationally correct, it is also morally correct because the intellectual patterns of science are of a higher evolutionary order than the old biological and social patterns. But the Metaphysics of Quality also says that Dynamic Quality - the value-force that chooses an elegant mathematical solution to a laborious one, or a brilliant experiment over a confusing, inconclusive one - is another matter altogether. Dynamic Quality is a higher moral order than static scientific truth, and it is as immoral for philosophers of science to try to suppress Dynamic Quality as it is for church authorities to suppress scientific method. Dynamic value is an integral part of science. It is the cutting edge of scientific progress itself." [LILA, p418] "It seemed that when you add a concept of "Dynamic Quality" to a rational understanding of the world, you can add a lot to an understanding of contrarians." [LILA, p411] "What makes the free-enterprise system superior is that the socialists, reasoning intelligently and objectively, have inadvertently closed the door to Dynamic Quality in the buying and selling of things. They closed it because the metaphysical structure of objectivity never told them Dynamic Quality exists." [LILA, p253] So, in a manner akin to the historical development of physics, I think we can talk about a classical pattern of rationality and a value-centred rationality with the larger intellectual structure of the latter subsuming the former. It can be noted that, whilst the classical pattern is hitched to a representationalist conception of knowledge, an MOQ rationality more closely aligns to a pragmatist (and arguably coherentist) conception in which truth is measured by value and not correspondence. >From : <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent : 14 November 2005 08:07:11 To : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject : Re: MD FW: The intellectual level and rationality (reformatted) Hi Paul, good to see you back. First of all I appreciated the input about the various Qualities (in your first post) something that goes against the notion of a QUALITY of which DQ/SQ is a subset, this runs counter to your earlier view so I hail your honesty. 12 Nov. you wrote: >I agree with the recent suggestion by Rebecca Temmer that rationality >is a good definition of the intellectual level. Predictably, I >disagree with Bodvar that rationality and SOM are identical or even >inextricable. I have long argued that there exists an 'eastern >rationality' which is not dependent on the assumptions of a SOM and >moreover I believe Pirsig considers the MOQ itself to be rational, or >more accurately, in his words - an expansion of rationality itself. I >offer the quotes below in support of my assertion. No-one contest an "eastern rationality", however "not dependent on SOM" is plain impossible, I mean rationality can be enlarged but it has to rational first. In moqish: The intellectual level - or SOM - had to be reached before the MOQ could lodge on top of it (see PS). IMO there was an Oriental S/O-development, but it didn't evolve into a SOM thus delaying the next step as it did in the West. The Eastern culture went on, but because of its "weak" intellect their Buddhism/Taoism looks like some mystic religion to us, while it really is an enlarged rationality. The strong Western intellect - SOM - was an hindrance but also a blessing, it brought modernity to the West while a most strict social system remained in the East. When the next step finally emerged with Pirsig, it had to break an enormously strong S/O barrier and to do so the MOQ had to be rational enough to satisfy science, something it only manages by the SOL interpretation. Bo PS In your absence we have made great strides. I refer to Mike Hamilton and myself performing the trick of "eating the cake and keeping it", namely keeping the framework of the MOQ as an intellectual pattern while simultaneously creating the Q-reality which "contains" intellect as a static level. PPS Your two theses I haven't yet studied yet, but it is promising that you see the "idealist" annotations in LC needing some adjustments. ======================================== >From : Paul Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent : 14 November 2005 10:57:58 To : <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject : RE: MD FW: The intellectual level and rationality Bo, >First of all I appreciated the input about the various Qualities (in >your first post) something that goes against the notion of a >QUALITY of which DQ/SQ is a subset, this runs counter to your >earlier view so I hail your honesty. Paul: It is entirely possible that I had a different view but I don't recall expressing it before or even what it was. >12 Nov. you wrote: > >>I agree with the recent suggestion by Rebecca Temmer that rationality >>is a good definition of the intellectual level. Predictably, I >>disagree with Bodvar that rationality and SOM are identical or even >>inextricable. I have long argued that there exists an 'eastern >>rationality' which is not dependent on the assumptions of a SOM and >>moreover I believe Pirsig considers the MOQ itself to be rational, or >>more accurately, in his words - an expansion of rationality itself. I >>offer the quotes below in support of my assertion. > >No-one contest an "eastern rationality", however "not dependent >on SOM" is plain impossible, I mean rationality can be enlarged >but it has to rational first. In moqish: The intellectual level - or >SOM - had to be reached before the MOQ could lodge on top of >it (see PS). Paul: ""Not dependent on SOM" is plain impossible" commits the fallacy of presenting a premise as a conclusion. So I reject that statement as it stands. Also, you seem to be saying that rationality is inextricably bound to SOM in one breath but that it can be other-than-SOM in another. Which is it? Here is the basis of my argument: If intellectual level = rationality and If rationality > SOM Then intellectual level > SOM QED Regards Paul . _________________________________________________________________ The next generation of Hotmail is here! http://www.newhotmail.co.uk 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/
