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:
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 consistent with the quote, but the quote, in that interpretation is not
consistent
with the broader whole of Pirsigs work.
Here is why I say this:
>
> 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.
Ron:
what is value but choice, a selection set, a pattern
of betterness from atoms to ideas. I can match you quote for quote
on this issue, but, you are pointing to the meaning of the terms
Static and Dynamic within a particular context claiming that
developing a deeper understanding of the general terms negates their meaning
in particular contexts. Perhaps.
Perhaps if we connected meaning in a broader context it would shed new
meaning to the contexts of the particular quotes.
The disagreement we are having is based on the consistency with the entire
work not the negation of terms in particular contexts in the way you understand
them
to mean....or maybe it is..
> 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:
A Radical empiricist might say that all better ideas are always better ideas
regardless of new or old, but a Pragmatist might say that we embrace the new
by virtue of how well they intergrate with the old ideas.
Therefore the good would always be a synthesis.
Ron:
> 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?
Ron:
How else are we to find that out if we do not link the ideas in a consistent
manner of intelligibility. Whos idea of THE MoQ is correct?
Only Bob's and he's not talkin.
Dan:
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.
Ron:
Thats a real absolute authoritative view, Marsha's not going to like that too
much.
Dan:
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.
Ron:
Like I said how are we to discern this without connecting Pirsigs ideas
in a continuos whole meaning?
>
Thanks 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
