Matt said: ...The interpenetration of DQ/SQ makes it apparent that it doesn't make a whole lot of theoretical sense to say one begins with either. And reverting to the discussion of amateur philosophy, I didn't want to say that one _begins_ with standards, but that one _is_ standards, facing down that DQ/blank page (which is this analogy's version of the whole of the aphorism: static patterns plus contact with DQ).
dmb says: The point that "one IS standards" is not at all clear to me. But I'm pretty sure that it does make sense to say we should begin with one instead of the other. I'm pretty sure that his central point in those classroom scenes. "As a result of his experiments he concluded that imitation was a real evil that had to be broken before real rhetoric-teaching could begin. ..the more he thought about it the more right it sounded. (ZAMM 192) " 'It doesn't make a bit of difference HOW you do it! Just so long as it's good'. ..The student was finally and completely trapped into making quality judgments for himself. And it was just exactly that and nothing else that taught him to write. ..the academic system ..forced students to conform to artificial forms that destroyed their own creativity. Students who went along with his rules were then condemned for the inability to be create or produces a piece of work that reflected their own personal standards of what is good. (ZAMM 208-9) But it seems pretty clear that we have very different ideas about DQ. If I imagined it in terms of a blank page, I would NOT be making a case for it like I am. I mean, it would be very unhelpful to suggest that creative excellence begins with a blank page. In fact, that image only conjures the terror of writer's block. To put it roughly, I'm saying it begins with an honest attempt to render your own specific experience as opposed to starting with standards. The idea is that excellent is a real goal even if you can't say what that excellence will entail in advance. Ron: A nice explanation on the distinction drawn between a truer form of intellectual Quality as opposed to a imitation of excellence. What Pirsig seems to be pointing to with "following DQ" is the development of first hand critical thinking of "ones own" experience. I quoted "ones owns" to lend emphasis to the concept of an individual that makes this honest attempt which is how the idea of free will is enlarged not redefined. The problem with the old understanding is that free will was bereft of morals one may act as one wishes the only consequence was of a social nature. But now we see free will as having a direction for one to truly have a "will" that is "free" one must follow DQ one must pursue excellence. Since excellence is the good by way of being, pursuing excellence is living the fullest best life. Nodding to Steve, following SQ, imitating the good we are not free and make preffernces based on determined values. Prone to gumption traps and limited thinking and adhereing to what the status quo of good is, we are leading a less than excellent life. A mediocre one actually. ... 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 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
