Hi Matt,
DMB said:
Well, first of all, you might want to separate the empirical claims
from the historical, evolutionary claims. The sense of better and
worse is something that occurs in the moment of experience while
the survivors are the "best" products of that primary sense of
value. In other words, this primary sense of value works to guide
evolution while the best state is the goal toward which we are guided.
Steve said:
I think this comment is an important key to understanding the MOQ.
I've thought for a while that there are two different perspectives
that have to be kept in mind and kept distinct, and I'm glad that
DMB has given them useful distinguishing labels: empirical and
historical.
Matt:
This distinction, then, might be a profitable place to spend some
time exploring and articulating.
For instance,
1) Are we making a distinction between an _empirical claim_ and an
_historical claim_? (DMB's words)
2) Are we making a distinction between an _empirical perspective_
and an _historical perspective_? (Steve's words)
3) What's the difference between a claim and a perspective?
Steve:
What I mean by the historical perspective is the MOQ hierarchy of
value patterns which is based on the evolutionary view of the
universe unfolding over billions of years. The hierarchy is justified
based on time where the types of patterns evolved in a specific
order. From this perspective inorganic patterns come first. But
Pirsig uses terms like "pre-intellectual awareness" to describe DQ as
well. Certainly he is not talking about inorganic patterns which are
also "pre-intellectual" in the historical perspective. Instead, DQ as
pre-intellectual makes sense from the empirical perspective where
time itself is not a given but derived from experience. From this
perspective ideas come first which include such ideas as the
evolutionary view of the universe unfolding over billions of years
which justifies the MOQ hierarchy.
As to whether there is anything significant about claims versus
perspectives, all I mean is that it is important to take into account
on which perspective a given claim that Pirsig makes is based.
4) Are we talking about two different _senses_ of the concept DQ?
5) What does it mean for a single concept to have _different_
senses and yet still be a single, unified concept?
I think the MOQ hierarchy is an attempt to demonstrate DQ/sq at work
through history, but if you want to understand DQ, it is the radical
empirical perspective that is most important since DQ is the leading
edge of experience. But I also tend to think that the less said about
DQ the better. It is a koan--a concept representing the
conceptionally unknown. I think the point is to think of the
conceptually unknown as an immediate quality stimulus instead of an
indifferent universe waiting to be discovered and evaluated.
As for "two different senses"--that is a gross understatement for a
term that is infinitely definable and thus left better undefined.
Matt:
6) What's the relationship between an "empirical/historical
perspective" distinction and the "Dynamic/static" distinction (also
commonly referred to as "perspectives")?
Steve:
I think of empirical/historical as two different perspectives on the
dynamic/static distinction.
Best,
Steve
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/
