Hello everyone On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 1:08 PM, Arlo Bensinger <[email protected]> wrote: > [Dan] > I guess that is why I tend to use the terminology "the MOQ says" rather than > "RMP says." And yes, in a conventional, static intellectual quality sense, > Robert Pirsig DID say it. But in order for the MOQ to evolve, I think he saw > that he had to (in a Dynamic Quality sense) let go of it. > > [Arlo] > Well, maybe its just me, but now it appears you are more pointing to "the > MOQ" as the school and NOT just what Pirsig said. I guess I don't understand > how something can evolve and yet not deviate from exactly what Pirsig said.
Dan: I'd have to say both. In an intellectual static quality sense, the MOQ is what Robert Pirsig says it is. In a Dynamic sense, though, it is a school of thought that belongs to all of us. >Arlo: > You said he "let go of it", and this suggests to me that the term "the MOQ" > refers to his ideas AND any derivate ideas that are built using his > foundation. > > Evolution implies change, does it not? How can something both evolve and > remain true to an author's words? Dan: In the discussion with Ron, I mentioned Newton and Einstein as an example of intellectual evolution. Newtonian physics are still used today. But Einstein's ideas have proved to be a better set of tools in describing reality. There is room for both static quality patterns and Dynamic evolution. They are not mutually exclusive. >Arlo: > To clarify, I'd say that Pirsig's ideas don't evolve (unless HE changes his > mind or something), but the overall foundation he built does evolve as other > voices contribute and disagree, etc. Again, the issue is not whether the one > (Pirsig's voice) is better/worse than the many (other voices in response), > but which of these you call "The MOQ". All along you've been saying the > former (Pirsig's voice) is "The MOQ", but this doesn't change, and can't > evolve (unless he does). Dan: Yes, I think I agree. Which is why (in my opinion) he may have used the term "the MOQ says" rather than "I say" or "Robert Pirsig says." In this way, he is lending a Dynamic Quality to his work that allows it to evolve and change for the better, whereas a purely static "I say" is bound to wither, grow old, and die eventually. Intellectually, the MOQ is Robert Pirsig's idea. And as this is an intellectual discussion of that idea, we should attempt to be consistent with it, even as we Dynamically attempt to enhance it and expand it. >Arlo: > In other words, "evolution" is in the dialogue, not in the utterance. > "Precision", that is what we find in the utterance. Dan: Well, I would say evolution is in the right dialogue and that presupposes precision and clarity. > > [Dan] > But out of a sense of intelletcual respect, I think we all need to > recognise that and remain consistent to it even as we add to it and help to > grow it. > > [Arlo] > Fully agree. But what is the tolerance, if you will, for "remaining > consistent" and "adding to it"? Take my disagreement with Pirsig over his > exclusion of any non-human pattern in the S/I levels. Is this disagreement > sufficiently small to say I am "adding" while "remaining consistent"? If all > "additions" are only clarifying explanations of what Pirsig said, is that > really adding anything at all? Dan: I am probably not the one to ask since I do not see a problem with social and intellectual patterns pertaining to humans alone. We are human. So to overlay our patterns on another species seems (to me) iffy at best and downright immoral in some situations. If you truly feel that way though, it would seem that a well-reasoned argument to the contrary might be the place to start, using the framework of the MOQ as a fondation to explain why non-humans should be included in our culture (social and intellectual patterns of quality). >Arlo: > I suppose contextualizing works like DiSanto's and Ant's and DMB's would > classify mostly as "additions" that "remain consistent", the new things they > add are "voices in support" of the initial ideas of Pirsig. This is great, > but I don't see it as "evolution" of Pirsig's ideas, since the primary > philosophy is unchanging and always bound to the words spoken by Pirsig. Dan: I cannot speak for the others mentioned, but in doing the work on LILA'S CHILD, I found that my understanding of the MOQ was greatly improved. I believe the work is fully consistent with the MOQ yet it also bettered my grasp of some subtle and ambiguous points that existed in my mind after reading LILA, and in the minds of others, from what I understand. But that is just me. I had a number of "ah ha!" moments that seemed to signify a Dynamic leap. I am sure others would (and have) disagree, though. >Arlo: > And again, don't misunderstand, "precision" is something I am very much in > support of here. If for no other reason than you can't genuinely > agree/disagree with someone until you understand what it is they said. Dan: Yes, that seems right. >Arlo: > I guess a problem here may be that we are using the word "evolution" > differently. Dan: Maybe. I am using the term as it is used in the MOQ, so far as I know. >Arlo: > Thanks for a great discussion, Dan. :-) Dan: You're welcome, Arlo! And thank you 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
