Yeaahhhh Ian!!!!!!!
On Aug 4, 2010, at 6:39 AM, Ian Glendinning wrote: > Inserted [IG] below Krim, (and all) ... > > (You did ignore my plea for some downside review of practical snags > etc ... but hey - I believe this is an important conversation.) > > On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 5:14 PM, Krimel <[email protected]> wrote: >>> [Ian] >>> My view is pragmatic. Name a preferable metaphysics... >>> >>> [Krimel] >>> Taoism. >> >>> [Ian] >>> Go on, Krim, I'm listening (and don't forget to consider >>> the downside / abuses / risks as well ...) >> >> [Krimel] >> Pirsig does a pretty good job with this in ZMM. I will never understand why >> he messes it up so in Lila. > > [IG] It's blindingly obvious why the approach changes in Lila - you > call it messing up, I call it introducing some probably unnecessary > complications. Hey, that's life. He wanted to address his rhetorical > arguments in ZMM to a more formal philosophy audience in Lila. He wins > no prizes for engagement with academic philosophy - he alienates them > by branding them philosophologists for a start - but that has no > bearing on whether his metaphysics is any good. > >> Basically the idea is that we apprehend and name >> the world through oppositions, white/black, big/small, ugly beautiful etc. > > [IG] You are simply suggesting this is the GOF / SOM / Classical view > that prevails ? No argument. > >> The Way or the path of virtue is understanding the world less through >> opposition than through harmony. Opposites are not usually matters of >> either/or but of balance and proper relationship. > > [IG] You are telling me ? My main cracked-record mantra. > >> >> I think one of the problems with the MoQ is Pirsig's effort at metaphysical >> stone cutting. He pictures this as revolving around finding the "right" >> first cut. Personally, since his locates his first cut about were Taoist >> have traditionally place emphasis I thought he had it nailed until arriving >> here four or five years ago. > > [IG] My perspective is different. I saw this based on practical > experience before I'd ever heard of Pirsig or the Tao. But OK. > >> Now I see it as a mistake to regard even the >> static/dynamic split as essential to Taoism which metaphysically handles all >> oppositions. > > [IG] Absolutely. There is nothing "essential" about the foundation of > any metaphysics. It is always a choice. The proof is in the working > (problem solving) value of the metaphysics thus constructed. > >> The emphasis on static and dynamic is mainly a matter of a >> particularly ubiquitous set of oppositions. Thing are changing or like to >> change or stationary and unlike to move. > > [IG] Now this is a key point. (we're still not talking about the value > of levels and patterns notice - just the ineffable core of the MoQ - > Quality and the first split.) Dynamic is the key point. Yes, in > everyday language everything is moving and static to some extent - a > sliding scale. BUT DQ is not about "things that move". In fact NOTHING > in the world is absolutely static. Everything is always changing. It > is always a matter of timescales. BUT DQ is about the bleeding edge of > existence - radical empirical - totally dynamic, not yet part of ANY > reified or conceptualized pattern or object. Something that is part of > the possibility in every change, but not part of any pattern or > object. For me the Tao is about being open to that bleeding-edge of DQ > possibility at any possible moment. > >> >> That sense of harmony which characterizes Lao Tsu's descriptions of The Way >> seems at least to be inborn and them amplified by culture. We have a sense >> of the world that is right for us. We sense harmonious relationships which >> is what I take Pirsig to be saying. That sense of harmony is like our sense >> of direction or our senses of time, space and probability. > > [IG] Hmm. Inborn ? In humans, or in existence generally ? Harmony is > indeed a key concept - integration rather than opposition, to return > to the mantra. It is that feeling we humans have that this is innate > "common sense" which makes these views so attractive - I agree, me too > - but by itself, that doesn't give us any practical framework for > life's decisions and actions, other than a subjectively relative one, > does it ? We need a bit more than "if it feels good do it". That's > just a start. > >> >> The biggest problem with the MoQ account of this is the idea of "betterness" >> which I would call "harmony". Betterness and harmony are not properties of >> DQ or SQ they are properties of the relationship or proportion of SQ to DQ. >> In is not a matter of DQ good, SQ bad. > > [IG] Clearly not. Did anyone ever suggest it was ? (Properties of ... > etc. ... we're objectivising Q and DQ too much here ?) > >> It is a matter of the balance of DQ >> and SQ. Pirsig plays lip service to this but even a casual stroll through >> the archives will reveal that it is Pirsig waxing rhapsodically about DQ >> that really catches on. People here seem to think the DQ is "betterness" and >> that it is more important than SQ. I think they are wrong on both counts. > > [IG] I already agreed with you. The DQ of possibility needs the static > latches of SQ / PoV's. Lip service ? It's called rhetoric, where's the > surprise ? > > [IG] OK so we like the ineffable Tao at the core of DQ. But that's not > a useful (pragmatically applicable) metaphysics by itself, not > something individuals and society can apply to moral governance of > their activities. And any metaphysics we build will have its good > points AND its risks - like Zen monks arming themselves for > nationalist wars, maybe. The MoQ may be imperfect, but it's a lot more > than an ineffable core idea open to abuse. > > Regards > Ian > 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/md/archives.html ___ 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/md/archives.html
