Hello Dan
>Ron:
> The illusion is intellectual.The intellectual response to dynamic quality
Dan:
Yes, the illusion of choice is intellectual.
Ron:
Now following this chain of thinking, the illusion of no choice is intellectual
also.
Correct?
>
>>>
>>>John:
>> Quite a corner you've got yourself painted into there Dan. One is only free
>> to the extent that one follows DQ, but since all experience is immediately
>> translated into sq, the only time one is truly free is in that tiny slice of
>> time which is the pet of existence to Radical Empiricism. Personally, I'd
>> like a bit more freedom than that. You need to reformulate, I think.
>
> Dan:
> It is not my formulation, John. It is the MOQ as described by Robert
> Pirsig. And if I am going to be painted in a philosophical corner, I
> can't think of anyone I'd rather be in it with.
>
Ron:
I think the rhetorical strategy of claiming interpretive legitimacy
in that we are not diagreeing with you so much as disagreeing
with "The" MoQ has found to be lacking in explanitive power and the
generator of a poor dialog, instead let us open a dialog regarding
the continuity of Pirsigs ideas and link them together in meaning
in such a way to support one another.
>Ron:
> I mean this statement is really bleak Dan really anti-intellectual too. How
>does
> the good
> fit into this supposition? where does Quality figure in?
Dan:
Well, I guess it is kind of like finding out there is no Santa Claus,
right? In a way, this statement might indeed be construed as bleak.
But would you rather fool yourself into believing you have a choice
when in fact you do not? It is better to go through life with eyes
open, in my opinion. That is the good. And that is where Quality
figures in as well.
Ron:
The good is finding out that there is no good. This is not consistent.
Pirsigs states that it's value all the way, every last bit.
>Ron:
> You are in effect saying that Quality is an illusion.
Dan:
No. I am saying Quality may not be what you think it is.
Ron:
Pirsig has linked Quality with : Value, The Good, and betterness.
some things are better than others, I take that as meaning the
exercise of choice, from atoms to ideas. Every last bit.
>> Dan:
> The existence of static quality impies pre-conditions. Not Dynamic
> Quality, which is always new and comes as a surprise.
>
> Ron:
> How can it surprise you when we have no choice how we percieve things.
> How can something that may not be defined create the new in the unchangeable?
Dan:
That is somthing we can't say.
Ron:
No that is something you can not answer without jeopordizing your position.
>>> Dan:
>>> Freedom isn't impossible. It just can't be defined in a static quality
>>> way. Once we start intellectualizing, freedom is lost. That is what I
>>> see the MOQ telling us.
>>
>
> Ron:
> Freedom is freedom from intellectual stuckness, it comes from defining who we
> are
> in terms of a particular set of values and clinging to them. True freedom is
>the
> freedom
> to embrace new ideas.
> Once we stop intellectualizing freedom is lost.
Dan:
In order to embrace new ideas we have to effectly kill the old ones.
Ron:
How do we compare to find which is better if we kill off the old ideas?
what measure of betterness is there? The imporance is in the understanding
of why some things are better than others, or the consequences of that
statement is that all new ideas are better ideas.
Which they are clearly not.
>Ron:
> Would someone who advocated a rejection of intellectual pattern of values
write
> a paper
> about quality in freshman writing? would he write two books explaining how we
> can
> Improve the quality of our lives by improving the way we think?
Dan:
It is like telling the fat person to stay out of the frig, remember?
He is not rejecting intellectual quality so much as RMP is saying
there's something better.
Ron:
Right only there is no knowing what that betterness is.
Glad to hear that you maintain that he does not reject
intellectual quality, but improves it.
>Ron:
> there seems to be a contradiction arising in the consistency of your
> interpretation and what
> Pirsig wrote about.
Dan:
I think you would rather not see what he is saying... that you are
comfortable with your static quality choices. And that's okay. But
that is not what the MOQ is telling us.
Ron:
There's that pesky claim of legitimacy again, THE MoQ.
I'm concerned with consistency of meaning in all of
Pirsigs concepts and we are working together to find
that.
THE MoQ rests on a legitimacy of interpretation
which has in the past, yielded the idea that any interpretation
is as good as another, which does not help the dialog
one bit.
A MoQ, would weigh the consequences of interpretations
to derive the best meaning. linking and supporting the
other concepts in the work in this manner.
Thanks Dan
Good dialog so far.
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
