Krimel stated March 15th 2013:
> Dan and I have been discussing terms that might be applied to the experience
> of dynamic quality [sic]. In short, to my suggestion of "irrational" Dan
> agreed
> there were senses in which in which it might apply.
DMB stated March 14th 2013:
Since "pre-conceptual" and "pre-intellectual" are also terms that mean
"not rational" but give us that meaning without the pejorative
connotations or misleading associations [of "Irrational", those terms are much
better at
capturing Pirsig's intention. The question driving the whole structure
of the MOQ is, after all, "what's good"? The MOQ is about morals,
values, excellence. It's about what's true and right and artful. And the
whole structure of it is arranged around DQ (pre-conceptual or
pre-intellectual experience). I think it would be more accurate to say
that this primary empirical reality is neither rational nor irrational
but "pre-rational" seems okay. We don't need it because the terms Pirsig
uses are just fine but it doesn't carry the same negative baggage.
"Irrational" would be a bad substitute. Objections to this aren't really
overcome by pointing to the less common meaning of "irrational" (as
"non-rational" in a non-pejorative sense).
Ant McWatt comments:
Krimel,
DMB's post about this issue (from yesterday) really put
paid to any notion of using the term "irrational" as a synonym for
Dynamic Quality. DMB's suggestions of "pre-conceptual" and
"pre-intellectual" are far better as they retain the benefits of using
the term "irrational" but without the negative connotations. Moreover,
as Dave implied, you have to be careful about associating any (static)
properties (such as being irrational or rational) to Dynamic Quality.
This is why much of Anglo-American philosophology often contains absurd ideas
(such as the eliminativist account of consciousness) - it doesn't have a
conceptual framework that
can alludes to this "pre-conceptual" indefinable reality i.e. if you initially
get the basics wrong in describing reality then you're more than likely going
to end-up producing nonsense when you later try to construct (explicitly or
implicitly) some sort of metaphysical hierarchy on top of it. As the late,
great Bill Hicks said, it's called using logic!
"Krimel" continued March 15th 2013:
> But [Dan] argued that the
> term carries negative baggage and I agree. I attempted to explain that my
> problem with the term Dynamic Quality is exactly that. It is loaded with
> baggage and in my view baggage whose contents are just as deceptive for
> being pleasant as irrational's are for seeming harsh...
Ant McWatt comments:
As
you've admitted in a recent post, you've not read much secondary
literature about the MOQ. Yet between the published papers (such as
SODV at moq.org, the MOQ Summary and the Copleston Annotations - at
robertpirsig.org), the e-books and films, there is
probably another book's worth of Pirsig's post-1991 comments about the
MOQ. Anyway, If you had looked at any of this secondary "literature"
(other than Dan's e-book, of course), you would have seen that
Pirsig stresses - time and again - to avoid making assertions about Dynamic
Quality. Assertions are static; Dynamic Quality isn't. The moment you say
something about it, it's wrong. Marsha would be the first person to remind you
of Pirsig's "not this, not that" mantra when talking about Dynamic Quality.
This is also why Dave's suggestion of looking at synonyms of Dynamic Quality
(such as the Tao or
Northrop's "indeterminate aesthetic continuum") is a good one. Just in case,
you missed it (rather than ignored it) this is what Dave said about the matter:
"We can bring in terms from other philosophers, starting with the others who
are mentioned by Pirsig in relation to this same elephant. In ZAMM he equates
Northrop's "undifferentiated aesthetic continuum" and Poincare's "subliminal
awareness" with his "Quality". In Lila he equates James's "pure experience" and
"immediate flux of life" with his own DQ. So we have a wide variety of terms
even within the primary texts. If you want to look outside of those two books,
there are even more ways to violate this beast."
"If you can read all those terms in such a way that they all mean the same
thing, in such a way that each term has the effect of illuminating and
clarifying the meaning of the others, then you know you've pretty well
discerned the basic shape of the thing. This is not meditation or mysticism.
It's a comparative analysis of the text's key terms and core concepts. An
analysis of just two of the terms used will preclude certain misconceptions or
misinterpretations. If somebody asks, 'in what sense if this immediate
experience undivided?', you can answer by pointing to the term 'pre-conceptual'
and explain that it 'undivided' in the sense that it is experience prior to
conceptual distinctions, prior to the differentiations of reflective
consciousness. And then, hopefully, that somebody will say, 'Oh, that's what
Northrop means by "undifferentiated"!' And then you'll say, 'yep, you've got
it'."
"Krimel" continued March 15th 2013:
> Pirsig's whole point in Bozeman was that his students knew which papers had
> Quality and which didn't...
Ant McWatt comments:
Not quite right, Krimel. The main point of Pirsig's exercise with his students
(and the four papers) was to show them that they knew what Quality was; even
though they couldn't define it.
"Krimel" continued March 15th 2013:
> Quick and dirty for me would be the balloon scene in "Oz the Great and
> Powerful." James Franco's Oz rides the tornado much like Dorothy did. He
> ducks inside the balloon's basket as the detritus of Kansas is sucked from
> the earth and spun into the air. Jagged edges and spiked limbs shoot past,
> piercing the wicker. And then. All of a sudden there is calm. Oz rides a
> sweet spot. He is in the groove; in the flow. Random [objects] float before
> him, weightless. The Wizard has time to flow between terror to wonder. As he
> reaches out to touch a bit of flotsam, he is slammed back into to side of
> his basket and once again hurled into the wind...
Ant McWatt comments:
Interesting reference there, Krimel. At December's MSU Chautauqua, there was
certainly a "Wizard of Oz" theme going especially with the Master of
Ceremonies, Michael Sexson (MSU's senior professor of English Literature). If
anyone here ever has a chance to hear Michael speak, please don't hesitate to
do so. He riffs the English language like an expert jazz player plays the
blues!
Best wishes,
Ant
.
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
