[John]
This issue dates way, way back to a problem I had with the conflation
of two different connotations of the word Quality. Is it a line? Or a vector?
According to you, and dmb way back then, and according to you now -
the whole MoQ, it's a line. According to me and Platt, it's a vector. Quality
is a direction, rather than merely differentiation.
[Arlo]
Hope you are feeling better.
I can't speak for DMB, but I don't think Quality is a "line", maybe
if you want a geometric analogy is more like a "field". The problem I
have with "direction" is that its entirely anthropomorphic (if not
tinged solipstic). I remember a Calvin and Hobbes strip where Calvin
deduced that he was the pinnacle of evolution by realizing that
everything that has ever happened in history happened for the sole
purpose of producing him. Since he exists, the "logic" goes, it must
be that everything happened with the goal of producing his existence.
[John]
I also strenuously argue against any sort of specialized
language. What next? A secret handshake? I thought the purpose of
the evolution of a metaphysical system is to go out and make converts?
[Arlo]
I don't know where you're getting this stuff, but no one is saying
any such thing. However, you can't say (1) Pirsig redefines the term
"Quality" but (2) we are going to keep using it the same way we've
always been using it.
Language evolves, terms grow and expand (or wither and die), and this
is no different. "Quality" as a central concept in a MOQ is different
from "quality" as its used in its "conventional", read S/O, sense.
The whole thesis of ZMM was to redefine Quality away from its
"conventional" use into a more expansive, more powerful, concept.
[John]
It helps to use the differing levels to understand what I
mean. Something on the biologically negative scale would be
something that kills, for
instance. Not in order to eat, or to dominate, but just for the pure
sake of killing. That's a negative quality for biological patterns.
[Arlo]
You have a few things conflated here. First, there can be no
"negative quality", as no quality implies non-existence. Second, you
are making a moral judgement on the biological level from the vantage
of the social. From within the biological level itself, killing for
the sake of killing is an empty concept. Things "kill" to survive,
and all behavior is tied to some value appraisal of the situation. If
a dog or lion or ape or germ or shark kills, it does so because
within the context of its act it appraises doing so as better than
not doing so.
It is human socio-intellectual vantage that passes the judgment that
if WE can see no understandable context for the killing, then it must
be "negative". I think this is entirely the kind of thinking a MOQ
argues against. Certainly, the pattern being "killed" would appraise
the context as having very low Quality, but "negative quality" makes
no sense within a MOQ.
[John]
Articulate? Does that mean explain in understandable
terms? Translating into the lingua franca? Because then I agree
completely. But turning terms
into a private language that nobody else can get, is what I mean by "esoteric".
[Arlo]
Who is saying anything about a "private language"? Pirsig has gone to
great lengths to articulate the distinctions between his use of the
term "Quality" and the "common use" of that term. Indeed, he finds
the common use indicative of a very deep problem, and his act of
redefining is central to his rooting out this malady.
[John]
But basically, I agree that writing a metaphysics IS a lived, real
experience. But it's an experience pertaining to intellect, and is a
far different beast than say, cookery or dancing. ... For we are then
discussing the difference between intellectual analysis and artistic
creativity.
[Arlo]
Then I'd suggest you go back to Square One, because this is precisely
the erroneous thinking that ZMM was written to overcome.
"Art" within Pirsig's ideas is not a separate domain of human
activity, it pertains to ALL human activity; and writing a
metaphysics or building a rotisserie is just as much "art" as
painting a picture or dancing a tango.
I still am a bit speechless that there is a trend towards "art
elitism" in this forum. "Art" is everyday lived experience. It is the
way we respond to Quality in the immediate moments of our lives.
"Art is high-quality endeavor. ... Art is the Godhead as revealed in
the works of man." (Pirsig, ZMM)
For what its worth, "art" is another term that is greatly redefined
under a MOQ. I think in a MOQ, for example, "art" is a verb. It is a
manner of responding, a in-tune caring and openness to Quality. Or
maybe an adverb if you wish, an artful way to build a rotisserie and
a non-arftul way to build the rotisserie. Artful building and
non-artful building. The outcome, or product, or artifact of that
process is what we traditionally call "art", but the rotisserie is
not the "art", it is the result of the "art".
In the same vein I think the elitist label "artist" has to go,
especially as its applied to painters and sculptors but not
machinists and metaphysics writers. We can dispense with "she is an
artist" and instead say "she does X very artfully". Picasso was not
an artist, Picasso painted very artfully.
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
