Hello everyone On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 4:03 PM, Matt Kundert <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hey Ron, > > Matt said: > I perceive Dan's response ... as further highlighting what Steve > sees as the problem in holding that DQ is both a > placeholder/je-ne-sais-quoi "AND" the Good. The problem might > be best put in terms of the indeterminacy of DQ/degeneracy > thesis: if I want to always be following DQ as much as possible, > how do I know whether I'm dimly apprehending Dynamic Quality > or apprehending dimly with static patterns? > > The thesis suggests there's going to be no answer, but what > does it mean to say, then, that DQ is the Good? Well, I guess > just that it is a placeholder necessary to fully explain the > evolutionary paradigm of Deweyan evaluative experience. So > that, sometimes our experience of good is an implicit rejecting > of past-evil, but sometimes it's an implicit rejecting of now-good. > And we won't know the difference in our own experience until > much later, for the experience of dimness, we might say, is a > necessary condition, but definitely not sufficient. > > Matt: > I have to admit that this was an impromptu innovation to solve > the problem before me, and I'm not quite sure what it's full > consequences are. Nor did I systematically canvass the > possibilities available, which I notice better now. For example, > the indeterminacy of DQ/degeneracy does not, in fact, cover > fully the possibilities of in-the-moment experience. To chart > three responses: > > Static responses ------- Dynamic Responses > | | > -------------------------- | > | | | > Reject Past-Evil Reject Past-Evil Reject Now-Good > (Degenerate) (Latch Enforcement) (Dimly perceived betterness, > eventual > good/static latch) > > The point, I think, of distinguishing "rejecting of past-evil" from > "rejecting of now-good" is that the true Dynamic leap forward > without a net--for the leap must produce its _own net_ (i.e. > static latch)--is a rejection of something we perceive _rightly_ > as a current good, a static latch that works, but it is rejected for > as-yet not completely understood reasons and, more importantly, > possibilities. Dimly perceiving Dynamic Quality, I think, must be at > the same time a concession that the future of this perception is > unsure, as it is by its nature the leaving-behind of the > sure/static/stable/known.
Hi Matt I don't remember if I answered your post... I've been absorbed in a writing project that seems to take progressively greater amounts of my time. Still... I'd like to share a few of my thoughts with you all, for what it's worth... Using the train analogy we might say that the leading edge of the train is Dynamic Quality, although it's best to qualify that it is an intellectual term denoting that which comes before intellect. Picture each of us standing at the front of the train as it rolls down the tracks. We are facing backwards though, never forwards. We never see what's coming until it is past us. I understand the rejection of past-evil and past-good are static formulations arising in the present... the intellectual present, when we have formulated what it is we're experiencing putting it into boxes categorizing it according to what we know. I am unsure where you're going by equating rejecting now-good with Dynamic Quality. I understand it is best to say Dynamic Quality is not this, not that, and the reason for that is to avoid pigeon-holing Dynamic Quality into compartments. Dynamic Quality isn't about rejection, however, though I can see how the static quality sense of negation does lend itself to that connotation. I think that's what I tried to point out when I saw Steve saying it is negative quality that gets a person off the hot stove. And perhaps I misunderstood him... I see negative and positive quality as arising later in the intellectualizing a person does once they jump off the stove. What gets them off is a sense of low quality, and we use that term only to describe that which is indescribable. The low Quality one feels when they find themselves in such a situation is perceived yet not categorized as good or bad. One simply acts. Standing at the front of the train we never see what's coming... we are in the same position as the person sitting on the hot stove. They don't know what is happening. They only know "something" is amiss. Life is like that. We face hardships daily. Some obstacles we can intellectualize away, but others are too difficult to overcome so easily. That which might have seemed a good move at first turns out to be a curse and that which seemed all wrong turns out to be a blessing. And then the wheel turns yet again... >Matt: > This was just to further riff off the original formulation. Ron, > you then said > > Ron said: > What interested me was your evaluation of rejecting past evil, > rejecting now good and an aim towards a future better-ness in > Deweyan terms and how this links to Wittgensteins Philosophy as > theraputic regarding DQ being both a placeholder and the Good. > Particularly how this relates to the mythos of the hero's journey > and following DQ. > > Matt: > So, to clarify the terms of what I was suggesting, I think the > "rejecting now good" is the "aim towards a future betterness." > (I think you'd divided the two in a series of three, but I'm not > sure. Or to what effect.) > > Did I talk about this Deweyan version in connection to the bits > about Wittgensteinian therapeutic model of philosophy? I can't > recall now, or what I had made of it. But perhaps it was along > the lines of how, once one understands the Pirsigian point that > one cannot ever be out of touch with reality, then one will see, > too, that though Dynamic Quality isn't easily apprehended, no > intellectual pattern could get in the way of your ability to. This > was Steve's point that SOMists, despite having a bad philosophy, > are just as likely to be able to get in touch with Dynamic Quality > in their lives, for that's part of the Pirsigian precept in ZMM: stay > loose so you don't lose gumption. The monkey gets his hand > caught in the rice-trap, but he could get out. Dan: Dynamic Quality is easy to touch. It is always there. But when we apprehend it, it disappears. It is like trying to tell someone how to write well. There are certain logical styles one can follow to improve one's writings but in the end I think it is the writer's own voice speaking that makes for good writing. But what of bad writing, then? Is that not also the writer's own voice? Rice-traps are all about, it seems... >Matt: > Is he likely to get out? Probably not. Why? Because he's a > monkey (largely) guided by instinct. This further extrapolation of > the analogy suggests that it does, indeed, matter what kind of > intellectual patterns we have. For as I've extended it, the > "monkey" stands in for a specific set of intellectual patterns. A > "human," with his hand in the rice-trap, might be much more > likely to get out because he can calm himself and figure out what > is causing the problem. The "human," in this case, stands in for a > different set of patterns, one that _enables_ greater facility with > problems. So: is it indeed the case that some intellectual patterns > better _enable_ Dynamic Quality? Dan: I would say Dynamic Quality enables intellectual patterns towards betterness, not the other way around. We are all caught in a trap and if we could only let go of what we have we could be free. But we don't. Instead, like that monkey, we cling incessantly to what we know even as the grim reaper approaches us with scythe in hand. We do not possess Quality. Quality possesses us. We tell ourselves we have intellectual patterns of value but instead those patterns have us. We are a product of what we think. We are, therefore we think... >Matt: > I think we have to answer yes, despite my initial formulation of > "no intellectual pattern could get in the way of your ability to be > in touch with reality." For, is it not also a consequence of Pirsig's > understanding of evolution that, e.g., _some_ biological patterns > and _not others_ enabled the creation of an entirely new kind of > static patterns (i.e., social)? Dan: Not exactly... although it could certainly be construed that way. We are human beings. As such we perceive the world through the lens of human being-ness. Intellectual patterns always get in the way of reality. That is the nature of ideas. Our ideas of reality are taken to be real... we believe what our senses tell us and the intellectual prowess we develop enable us to know the world as it really is. But it is our idea of reality that we know... not reality itself. >Matt: > I'm not sure if the conundrum I've walked into is fake, or how to > walk out of it. However, perhaps it is the case that abstract > philosophy is meant to be largely therapeutic because it is when > our concretely used intellectual patterns become abstracted away > from their moments of deployment in our regular lives that, when > bandying them about against each other in the abstract, they > occasionally cause us to forget about our regular lives because of > the real conundrums that appear (think of Descartes' faux inability > to know anything practically until he solved a theoretical problem; > and compare that to Pirsig with cigarettes burning into his > knuckles). They _are_ real conundrums, and they can be solved > by overturning the intellectual chess board, affecting a Copernican > shift in understanding. But those shifts are hard to come by, and > in the mean time there's much Dynamic experience in the world > one is avoiding by focusing on this one narrow, little corner of the > vast terrain. Perhaps that's why we should remind ourselves that > we aren't actually out of touch with reality, and need a little > Wittgensteinian therapy to help us put down the fly-bottle. (I'm > not sure if that mixing of Wittgenstein's metaphors obscures, > elucidates, or inadvertently highlights.) Dan: For philosophy to be therapeutic it seems to me that we must tell one another stories using the framework of our lives as a backdrop. That isn't to say we write in an autobiographical sense... in fact I think it is better not to do so. Rather, we use our experience as a sort of contextual foundation upon which to draw. Instead of using paints and canvas we use words and monitors. But it goes deeper than that... we represent reality in a symbolically united formulation by intellectualizing Dynamic Quality as far away from us as possible. The more we think, and philosophize, and write about reality the farther away it gets until we are no longer in touch with "it" at all. I think that is Andre's point when he said he wouldn't be here (in the discussion group) if he was truly in touch with Dynamic Quality. None of us would be here. But we are. So, in my mind at least, there must be something of value here... something that draws us in and keeps us coming back. I like to think it is more than the intellectualizing... it is a sense of sharing, a way to peek into something larger than ourselves. Often times I read the words of others here and I think to myself (and sometimes out loud for all to read) Christ, how can they be so stupid! Only later do I come to understand it is I who is being stupid in rejecting outright that with which I fail to agree. It is the Dynamic experience of the constant evolution of intellect that renders an understanding where none existed before. That isn't to say some people are outright wrong in their intellectual meanderings... it is only to say that being wrong is the key to evolving insights into the nature of reality and of course philosophy itself. >Matt: > Ron quoted some Campbell: > "The hero adventures out of the land we know into darkness; > there he accomplishes his adventure, or again is simply lost to us, > imprisoned or in danger; and his return is described as a coming > back out of that yonder zone. Never the less-and here is a great > key to understanding of myth and symbol- the two kingdoms are > actually one. The realm of the gods is a forgotton dimension of the > world we know. And the exploration of that dimension , either > willingly or unwillingly, is the whole sense of the deed of the hero." > > "There must always remain, however, , from the standpoint of > normal waking consciousness, a certain baffling inconsistancy > between wisdom brought forth from the deep and the prudence > usually found to be effective in the light world. Hence the common > divorce of opportunism from virtue and the resultant degeneration > of human existence." > > Matt: > You'll have to forgive me, but I don't prefer to use Campbell's > formulations. (He seems a tad too reductionistic to me, though in a > different way, I think, than in my avoidance of Jung. Though, I'm > not terribly well-versed in either.) I rather Harold Bloom and > Northrop Frye's, but all four have very similar ways of talking about > this phenomena-set. > > In Bloom's formulation, the Romantic poets--who are our great > mythos-creators of Western Individuality--marked the "internalization > of quest romance." The Arthurian romances of the medieval period > and Greek and Roman epics (recently resurfaced during the > Renaissance) pictured these heroic ubermensch, striding off in > search of adventure. As the world closed in around poets through > the march of industrialization (birthed with capitalism, and cycling > with the population explosion), and martial feats became less an > applicable metaphor, the Romantic bent turned inwards, so that no > longer was the heroic overcoming of obstacles an _external event_, > but what happened to people on the inside. The obstacles became > housed in our mind--dogma, prejudice, conventions, etc. > > This way of stating the the hero's journey, as one into oneself, I think > more effectively let's us see the real problem with seeing a divorce > from the heroic quest for Dynamic Quality in the Spirit Realm and > "the standpoint of normal waking consciousness": it's the problem of > cigarettes burning down into your knuckles. Pirsig could quite have > replied that he was in quest of something more important than the > ephemera of friends, family, and jobs. And he would've been right. > It is more important, or rather _bigger_, in some sense, and it gives > sense to the notion of _sacrifice_ that comes along with the hero's > job. But the rhetoric of heroism--which Pirsig's scene quite > effectively deflates--is best theorized by Emerson, who called for the > Oversoul, yet at the same time remarked darkly, "I shun father and > mother and wife and brother when my genius calls me. I would > write on the lintels of the door-post, Whim. I hope it is somewhat > better than whim at last, but we cannot spend the day in > explanation." "Whim" was Emerson's word for the indeterminacy of > DQ/degeneracy. Dan: I guess I'm cut of the same cloth as Emerson though of course lacking his talent. Ron advised me to socialize more when I wrote before of shunning others when I am under the spell of my writings... but I can't. There are times when I cannot be around anyone. Period. And I haven't the faintest notion whether what I am creating is worth a tinker's dam. It doesn't matter, though. That is Emerson's point, as I take it. I understand Emerson is using "genius" not in the sense of the word itself but rather in the calling he felt, the compulsion that drove him. Whim. It is as good a word as any to describe what the artist must feel at the moment of conception... when they do not know if what they have brought into the light is good or bad. In addition to Emerson, Charles Bukowski's A Challenge to the Dark comes to mind... shot in the eye shot in the brain shot in the ass shot like a flower in the dance Thank you, 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
