Hello everyone On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 12:24 PM, X Acto <[email protected]> wrote: > 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?
Dan: Of course it is. Anything we discuss here is static intellectual quality. >> >>>> >>>>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. Dan: Yes, that is why we (at least I presume) are here: to further our understanding of the MOQ as described by Robert Pirsig in his book LILA through intellectual dialogue. And some dialogue is better than other dialogue. That I think we can all agree on, right? >>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. Dan: You are equating good with choice. That isn't what the MOQ says about good though. So I disagree. This is entirely consistent with what RMP states. I've already provided a definative quote. But here it is again: "To the extent that one's behavior is controlled by static patterns of quality it is without choice. But to the extent that one follows Dynamic Quality, which is undefinable, one's behavior is free." [LILA] Dan comments: Again, when we follow static quality we are without choice. This is consistent with the above quote, is it not? And when we follow Dynamic Quality, we are free. As far as I can see, I am being consistent. But if you disagree, please tell me of this inconsistency. > > > > > >>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: I think you are using Quality in the same fashion that John is using it and that is giving rise to confusion. In the framework of the MOQ, static quality is synonymous with value. Dynamic Quality gives rise to what's better. You are using Quality to cover both terms, so far as I can see, and in doing so are effectively negating the first division of the MOQ. Thus confusion is bound to arise. > > >>> 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: No. We cannot define Dynamic Quality. Or to put it another way, it is infinitely definable. But as soon as we define "it" it is no longer Dynamic Quality. It is static quality. > >>>> 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. Dan: Well, I was using "kill" in a literary sense rather than in a figurative way. Take Newton's theory of gravity... Einstein came along and proofed that Newton was wrong by replacing Newton's theory with his own. Now, in a sense, Newtonian physics is still used with great effectiveness. But when push comes to shove, Einstein's theory of relativity is better. Now, not all new ideas are better. That isn't what the MOQ is saying though. It says that Dynamic Quality is always new, a source of surprise. So it would be more accurate to say all better ideas are always new, don't you think? > >>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. Dan: Well, not before hand, no. And of course he doesn't reject intellectual quality. He just says there is some "thing" better... Dynamic Quality. > >>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. Dan: If I understand you, I think I would beg to differ. THE MOQ is what Robert Pirsig has laid out in LILA and subsequent writings. Not every interpretation is as good as any other. I think we agree on that, don't we? There are not many MOQs. There is one, as far as I am concerned. Any other theory should be called by another name, otherwise it leads to confusion. Now, yes, we may each have our own interpretation, but our interpretations should be consistent with RMP's, otherwise we are not discussing the MOQ. Period. > > Thanks Dan > Good dialog so far. Well, thank you, Ron. I am enjoying it too. Dan 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
