Hi Andre: I think it is ridiculous to suggest that my claim that "because he WANTED to" is an entirely valid explanation (among an infinite of possible explanations) for why the artist put his bruch stroke where she did is an endorsement of SOM. That is crazy/ It would only be so if I gave metaphysical significance to the will in describing this as an act of willing. Of course I didn't and would never think of doing that.
Your objection to this explanation is like objecting to Pirsig's explanation for why the monk jumped off the hot stove or why the amoeba moved away from the acid. The simple answer, "because it is better over here" applies in all these contexts and no MOQer should ever say that that answer or any other single answer exhausts all possibility for explanations of these situations. Best, Steve > Steve to Andre: > > But I certainly did talk about Quality when i described causality as "an > intellectual pattern of VALUE" > > Andre: > Yes, Steve and I suggested that the 'causality' you refer to is of the SOM > variety which keeps on invoking the old 'free will vs. determinism' > controversy. Especially when you apply it to the painter: > > Steve:"...was determined by the painter.It's there because the artist WANTED > to put it there." > > Andre: > What the MOQ suggests is that the planting of the brush 'there' was > Dynamically arrived at, non-mediated, non-intellectual. But when you then > argue that DQ 'caused', or 'determined' or 'produced' the placement of the > brush by the painter then you are implying "that Dynamic Quality is a part > of a cause and effect system of the kind generated by scientific thinking. > But Dynamic Quality cannot be part of any cause and effect system since all > cause and effect systems are static patterns."( Annotn 56). > > DQ is non-mediated, non-intellectual. > > Herrigel describes this 'moment' as well in Zen in the Art of Archery. To > suggest that DQ 'caused' the release of the arrow is to miss the point (even > though you may have hit the bulls eye). > > "In the Metaphysics of Quality 'causation' is a metaphysical term that can > be replaced by 'value'... The only difference between causation and value is > that the word 'cause' implies absolute certainty whereas the implied meaning > of 'value' is one of preference". (LILA, p 107) > > Steve: > You are using SOM as a catch-all criticism here (as is too often done in > this forum) of what I'm saying sounding stale to you. It's fine if you think > it is static, but to say that it is SOM is just false. I have not invoked a > subject object metaphysical view. I have explained what is left of > "determinism" once we SUBTRACT the metaphysical baggage. > > Andre: > There certainly was no offense or anything like that intended Steve. I hope > that Pirsig's comment in Annotn 56 indicates sufficiently why I felt that > your position resurrects a SOM-like thinking. 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
