The 28th Ron showed me the Pirsig letter to Prof. Gurr allegedly as
some counter-argument, what this is only known Ron
The "Hot Stove" example I omit because no one has to this day
offered an explanation (if Ron understands it - please elaborate). The
reference to Owen Barfield is interesting though because I have often
compared his particiation scheme with part of MOQ's static range,
namely the Social -Intellectual transition. Barfield's "Original
Participation" = the social level (Aretê in ZAMM) while his "Loss of
Participation" = the intellectual level. Fits like the hand and glove.
Pirsig to Prof. Gurr: "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 don't know what Barfield chapter Gurr refers to, but it's news to me
that (Pirsig sees)
"...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."
...and I wish that was true, because that is just what the SOL does by
making the intellectual level the S/O distinction. But then Pirsig
contradicts himself by repeating that the two LOWER LEVELS are
"objective" ....etc.
I also note that Pirsig avoids making the said comparison with Barfield
(original participation = social, loss of participation = intellect) because
it for the umpteenth time would point to the SOL.
-------------------------
Regarding Ron's post before this where he says:
> Ron:
> Well by all means lets run with it.
> I highlighted some points that I think need to be brought to bear to
> Clarify the MoQ position in regard to the intellectual level being
> The aggregate of the S/O distinction. In fact Pirsig states that it
> Is the reverse, that the intellectual level creates the aggregate
> Of the s/o distinction.
That Pirsig goes against the SOL is well known. Try to think for
yourself.
Bo
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
>
>
> Ron:
> that quality is an empirical phenomenon and The Metaphysics of Quality
> restates the empirical basis of logical positivism with more precision,
> more inclusiveness, more explanatory power than it has previously had,
> makes SOL kinda null and void doncha think?
>
> > [MD] OBJECTIVITY and SIGN
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/
