To all who have managed to get this far: Mati: In writing my previous response to Dmb it dawned to me that many of you may not have ever done any formal research dealing with "Data". Not to over simplify the process but you generally start out with a research question. (What are the intellectual and social differences of values of pre and post Soviet liberated generations?) Then you need to validate the significance of the research question. Then you need to establish methodology including how data will be collected analyzed and interpreted in a reliable manner. Then you collect the data analyze it interpret it and then draw conclusions from the data. Now this process is one of the many blessings of SOM. What the problem is with SOM is that for dealing with, let's say cultural studies, how do you objectively approach some cultural phenomenon that you would like to research that might shed some new and deeper meaning or understanding. Though I totally made up this Estonian research problem out of thin air, however it could provide some valuable insight to the next generation's perspective and how that could conceivably impact the future of a country. I realize this is a super generalization, but research, at its heart, is about providing a greater understanding and meaning about the world around us. I am guessing that is why Pirsig wanted to study Indians, so as to share an understanding of them that provided as much meaning to him. The downside to SOM is that it is limited in its capacity to understand the world around us. MOQ jacks us up a little higher up the mountain and gives a better view and understanding. That being said there is also a mountain of work to pull this off in any one of our lifetimes. And to show you how messy it can get here is an example of what I mean.
Ron: Mati, the methodology you propose I believe personally has been addressed by Pragmatism, Radical Empiricism and supported by the continental movement. Having said this, the Question that needs to be answered is what do these questions mean to us? How will answering them change the way we make value judgments? secondly what Pirsig suggest, is that there IS NO OBJECTIVE perspective. That the best assessments of a culture is from the participants themselves. If you dedicated yourself to the documentation of the intellectuals of that particular culture you would get a much clearer picture of how that culture functions. As for your example, per the analytical method you choose to support, only the truth statements of the Reet paragraph are intellectual level statements, the reasons, feelings ect. are social level statements. In an MoQ interpretation it all is Quality, what Reet describes as experiences are Dynamic descriptions, what she describes as objective truth statements are static descriptions (per Pirsigs Gurr letter.) Lila has Quality. She does not posess the SOM definition of intellectual quality, however she does poses dynamic intellectual quality. She speaks about her experience. She does not poses the SOM definition of social quality but she does possess dynamic social quality with her actions in relationships. SOM standards deem Lila as lo quality and socially immoral. MoQ standards deem Lila as Dynamic and highly moral. Lila, as the Indians, are only known by Lila, so it is deemed highly intellectual to LISTEN to Lila's EXPEREINCES. As it is most empirical to LISTEN to the Indians themselves about their culture. Mati: This all being said I will say this, I sincerely and respectfully don't think this is the way Pirsig intended for MOQ to be used, remember in MOQ the scalpel first cut, SQ/DQ. Ron: His first cut was romantic/classic. He saw this was solving by redefining. Then he realized that it was all defining. He chose DQ/SQ as his method of describing experience illustrating the fallacy of "things in themselves". Mati continues: The fallout is the four levels of values that are distinctive and discrete. DQ can't be defined, so SQ has to be. Ron: DQ can not be defined concretely, that is "objectively". It may be described. Mati: I have hung my hat on the point that if SOM mother of all scientific research and much of what we know about our world, then MOQ, stands to reason, should have the same or greater capacity. Ron: It's greater capacity is in the understanding that universal absolutes and things in themselves do not exist. "Truth" is relative. Quantum science has "objectively " proven this. The intellectual level is composed of " assessing truths" mythically, analytically, socially, biologically and inorganically. These "truths" are best acquired tested and utilized in experience. There fore the ultimate test of truth in MoQ terms is in immediate experience and an accurate description of that experience in Dynamic and static terms. I think you need to change your approach, building on the continental philosophers as DMB is doing, the concept has been around for 100 yrs and there is a strong undercurrent of movement towards it. The term Pragmatism has come to be almost synonymous with common sense. It is by this appeal MoQ will make the most meaningful impression. Academically, once one demonstrates how a term like "nothingness" is conceptualized as an entity and how conceptualizing "nothing" as "something" creates all sorts of paradoxes, it will be easier to illustrate the need for a MoQ. to provide greater clarity in meaning of terms. Thanks Mati 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/
