Andre: So for you it is: Quality/Dq/SQ and not (as Pirsig would have it) DQ/SQ?
[Krimel] I do prefer to think of SQ and DQ as ways of describing Quality. I actually think the DQ/SQ has more promise but not at all in the way Pirsig describes it. If DQ is equated with chaos and SQ with order, this works very well. Order is a subset of chaos. The most critical point in either case is to lose the idea that DQ is Good. In fact I think on the whole DQ is bad, very bad. Andre: This is what I mean by the 'loaded' stuff that subjects and objects 'carry' within a metaphysical/ philosophical framework. They are not two separate 'entities'. In this sense I agree with you that they are two 'sides'...'poles' of static manifestations within themselves as well as within the continuum of Quality. [Krimel] I think the framing of the problem of S/O is confused. The issue really is mind/matter or idealism/materialism. S/O doesn't really capture the problem very well. Sometimes I see my "self" as subject and sometimes as object. Also I do not see how there can be more than one subject; that would be me. "You" are just another object in "my" world. > [Andre] > In MoQ: DQ (Tao) / SQ (Yin/Yang). > [Krimel] > But see what you have achieved? You have removed Quality from the > Metaphysics of Quality. Not only does this strike me as absurd in and of > itself; but it also makes the adjective "dynamic" meaningless. And for what > purpose? Andre: I am mere adhering to Pirsig's own division of Quality here (Lila, p119): DQ/SQ. Are you suggesting that Pirsig hasn't written his own MoQ properly? [Krimel] I think Pirsig is vague on this point and this has led to different interpretations. But I have never had a problem pointing out that Pirsig account of the MoQ has some problems and I don't think he ever claimed that his was the final word. Krimel earlier: It is what you make static out of the Heraclytian river. It is what we share via language....It is abstractions from the flux... We need conceptual static patterns to filter and capture meaning from the flux around us. Indra's net is a living thing. It either catches and make meaning from the flow or it changes in response to it. Andre's response: And it is in this process, when language became 'separated' from its social 'use' and turned into intellect's toy/manipulative 'use' (that language was not anything but a direct communication but that it only conveyed 'meaning' to be further analysed later) that talking about our direct/immediate experience was not to be considered 'real' but merely a conceptualisation and that we need philosophers/ psychologists/ psychiatrists/ anthropologists to tell us what our experience REALLY means. I do think you may think I speak a lot of bull here Krimel, but this is a real problem for me. Language as a social pattern of value has been 'distorted'/ abused by intellect to represent something totally different from the way it was originally intended, from its origins. Its origins was not to convey 'meaning'! It was to communicate directly. 'Hey, fellow caveman,... raging bull...RUN!!'. The fellow caveman did not stop and ask what he meant...he RAN!! [Krimel] Language is completely unnecessary for the functions you envision here. We have evolved a highly complex set of emotional responses that both direct our actions and communicate our feelings to others. Watch the show Lie to Me. Social communication has almost nothing to do with words. It is about vocal inflection, posture, facial expression... Language is much more about intellectualizing, analyzing and becoming more specific. Andre: With all respect Krimel "A large part of the MoQ is based on Oriental mysticism" (Pirsig, On the Road DVD) and Pirsig is a Zen follower/practitioner. Pirsig has defined Quality as GOOD. As you say: The way of Virtue. [Krimel] Certainly Pirsig has this orientation but most of the folks in this discussion who advocate for the mystical approach do so at the expense of a western approach. They seem to think that rather than reconciling east and west, Pirsig is overthrowing the west. I don't think that is true at all. I think the reconciliation requires a change in understanding in both directions. The use of "preference" instead of "cause" for example, only makes sense to the extent that the connotation of volition is discarded. Some think the whole point is to embed the universe with volition. [Andre] I'm not sure Krimel but I think we both aim towards the same thing. It's just that we are using a different language and a different path to explain where we are at this moment. [Krimel] Well unless we want to talk in smiley faces and emoticons, that is kind of the nature of the beast, wouldn't you say? 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/
