Ian: "Relative" is probably a dirty word, but something more interactively communicated for sure.
Ron: What I mean by that is represented well by a letter from Mr. Pirsig to Prof. Gurr about Science and the MoQ. Empirical Phenomenon. Dated September 13, 1994 I had found a number of interesting points of agreement between Mr. Barfield and ZMM, and wanted to see if Mr. Pirsig were aware of this. Also I asked Mr. Pirsig how his quality could be an empirical phenomenon. (Unfortunately this letter is also missing.) Dear Prof. Gurr, The following quotation found at the bottom of page 75 of the paperback edition of Lila is, I think, what you are looking for: the clear, overt statement that quality is an empirical phenomenon. The Metaphysics of Quality restates the empirical basis of logical positivism with more precision, more inclusiveness, more explanatory power than it has previously had. It says that values are not outside of the experience that logical positivism limits itself to. They are the essence of this experience. Values are more empirical, in fact, than subjects or objects. Any person of any philosophic persuasion who sits on a hot stove will verify without any intellectual argument whatsoever that he is in an ably low-quality situation: that the value of his predicament is negative. This low quality is not just a vague, woolly-headed, crypto-religious, metaphysical abstraction. It is an experience. It is not a judgment about an experience. It is not a description o experience. The value itself is an experience. As such it is completely predictable. I is verifiable by anyone who cares to do so. It is reproducible. Of all experience it is the least ambiguous, least mistakable there is. Later the person may generate some oaths to describe this low value, but the value will always come first, the oaths second. Without the primary low valuation, the secondary oaths will not follow. The reason for hammering on this so hard is that we have a culturally inherited blind spot here. Our culture teaches us to think it is the hot stove that directly causes the oaths. It teaches that the low values are a property of the person uttering the oaths. Not so. The value is between the stove and the oaths. Between the subject and the object lies the value. This value is more immediate, more directly sensed than any "self" or any "object" to which it might be later assigned. It is more real than the stove. Whether the stove is the cause of the low quality or whether possibly something else is the cause is not yet absolutely certain. But that the quality is low is absolutely certain. It is the primary empirical reality from which such things as stoves and heat and oaths and self are later intellectually constructed. Thank you for the chapter from Barfield. It's always a pleasure to read someone who says exactly what you already think. It was not made clear enough in Lila, but the Metaphysics of Quality resolves the subject-object problem by containing it at a high level so that there really is no contradiction between the two systems of metaphysics. The MOQ says that the two lower levels of static patterns of quality-inorganic and biological-are exactly synonymous with what is called "objective." The two upper levels-social and intellectual-are exactly synonymous with what is called "subjective." The terms "objective" and "subjective" are no longer needed in any way. They should be avoided as imprecise and confusing. If you get in the habit of stopping every time you see the word "subjective" or "objective" and substitute the appropriate static value level, you will find a lot of fallacious thinking suddenly becomes very apparent, particularly in the social sciences. I notice that Barfield uses the term "meaning" which is also avoided in the MOQ. "Meaning" confuses two distinct entities which the MOQ sharply distinguishes as, "value" and "definition." When a scientist asks "What is the meaning of this phenomenon?" he may be confusing two entirely separate questions: (1) "What is the value of this phenomenon?" and (2) How does this phenomenon integrate intellectually with what we already know? By using this equivocal term some scientists find they can make value judgments without' admitting they are doing so. They cannot say, "This is important because I like it," so they say, "This is meaningful!" If someone challenges them by asking, "Why is it meaningful?" they can evade question (1) "What is the value?" by answering question (2) with a lengthy explanation of how the phenomenon in question integrates with our existing knowledge. I have seen this happen again and again and imagine you have too. When Barfield talks about meaning he is talking about meaning, and putting it exactly where the MOQ puts quality, as a larger container that contains both subjective entities and objects. Quality and meaning, are the same thing. Intellectual static patterns of quality and meaning, are also the same thing. The MOQ does not agree with Steiner (on p.208 of Poetic Diction) when he says "thinking transcends the distinction of subject and object." According to the MOQ thinking is subjective. But the MOQ does agree with Steiner when he says consciousness transcends the distinction between subject and object because the MOQ says that' not all consciousness is thinking. Artistic consciousness precedes thinking and is separate from it both in the judgment of Freshman composition and in jumping up from a hot stove, and also, I think, in the making of scientific discoveries. Inspiration" is a pretty good equivalent for Dynamic Quality but "inspiration" has historical connotations of some mysterious perfume that enters the body from some place afar. It is supposed to be some kind of object that enters the subject. That is not what Dynamic Quality is. Dynamic Quality is here all the time, engulfing both subject and object, and people become more or less sensitive to it as they become detached from existing static patterns. When Louis Agassiz had his students studying a fish for days I think he was trying to free them from their narrow-minded static patterns about the fish so that the Dynamic Quality of their experience would shine through and produce new static patterns, i.e. "discoveries." Zen meditation teachers do the same thing without limiting the discovery to a particular field. Anyway, it is certainly good to see that you are continuing your interest in the Metaphysics of Quality and also getting your students' minds into it. Right now I'm immersed in the static patterns of sailboat restoration, learning to weld aluminum and stainless steel by the metal-inert-gas process. Your letter about the MOQ has provided a refreshing relief from it. Best regards, Signed by hand Robert M Pirsig 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/
