dmb said: "...Classic and romantic refer to different ways of thinking - wherein those with a classic temperament love Aristotelian details and those with a romantic temperament prefer Platonic wholes. Dynamic Quality is neither because it's prior to reflective thought and so cannot be a thought style of any kind. And yet the patient on the table is still analysis itself, reason itself, and Pirsig's expansion of rationality is accomplished by putting DQ at the center of our thinking, even at the center of the scientific process itself. We can see this in both books but in Lila, where we see that gut feelings might just be a biological response, Pirsig is more precise about the difference between gut instincts and pre-intellectual awareness.
In LILA Pirsig wrote: "The Metaphysics of Quality says that science's empirical rejection of biological and social values is not only rationally correct, it is also morally correct because the intellectual patterns of science are of a higher evolutionary order than the old biological and social patterns. But the Metaphysics of Quality also says that Dynamic Quality - the value-force that chooses an elegant mathematical solution to a laborious one, or a brilliant experiment over a confusing, inconclusive one-is another matter altogether. Dynamic Quality is a higher moral order than static scientific truth, and it is as immoral for philosophers of science to try to suppress Dynamic Quality as it is for church authorities to suppress scientific method. Dynamic value is an integral part of science. It is the cutting edge of scientific progress itself." Similarly, In ZAMM Pirsig wrote: "I think that it will be found that a formal acknowledgment of the role of Quality in the scientific process doesn't destroy the empirical vision at all. It expands it, strengthens it and brings it far closer to actual scientific practice." Krimel's use of "irrational" confuses pre-intellectual awareness (Quality or Dynamic) with instincts and primitive forms of cognition." Krimel replied: ... Intuition is the mode of thinking preferred by the romantic. It is irrational thinking in that it does not depend on concepts. Concepts can be tools to evaluate our intuitions. But the romantic is more likely to listen to the still small voice than the scratching of chalk on a blackboard. ...The classic mode is entirely rational. It is static as a machine is static. It is algorithmic. It offers precision in exchange versatility. It works in a classroom but not in a bar room. The dynamic aspect of Quality is entirely irrational BECAUSE it is prior to reflective thought. Reflective thought is EXACTLY what it is not. It is that other thought, that isn't thinking. The thought that is in doing and acting and engaging with experience. It is implicit, unconscious, abductive, feeling, mystical, emotional, moody, magical, continuous, procedural, flowing heuristic... I see no connection whatever between the assertion you made and the quotes that follow. I see no distinction be ing made between a gut instincts and pre-intellectual awareness. ... Pirsig says nothing about where intuition comes nor does he say anything about where it does not come from. dmb says: Right. Exactly. You see no distinction being made between gut instincts and pre-intellectual awareness. [Krimel] I said, "The dynamic aspect of Quality is entirely irrational BECAUSE it is prior to reflective thought." [dmb] That's the problem. [Krimel] It does seem to be a problem for you. [dmb] You're equating the pre-conceptual with with instincts and primitive forms of cognition. [Krimel} I said, "The dynamic aspect of Quality is entirely irrational BECAUSE it is prior to reflective thought." Maybe in this case I should say, "Instincts and primitive forms of cognition are entirely irrational BECAUSE they are prior to reflective thought." [dmb] "Intuition" means very different things depending on what sort of situation we're in. [Krimel] The irrational is raw material for the rational. Meaning IS a synthesis of the rational and the irrational. In the case of intuition it is an irrational experience that instantly conforms to reason. It is the solution to a problem that leaps into the mind and the mind says, "Aha." It is sublime. It is irrational. Whatever situation we are in, our responses will be different and they will be largely irrational. Are you saying that Intuition IS rational? Is it post-intellectual? [dmb] (The)(intuition)(that)(guides)(the)(scientific)(process,)(as)(in)(the)(quote s)(above)(and)(in)(the)(Poincare)(example,)(is)(OBVIOUSLY)(not)(the)(same)(a s)(one's)(intuitions)(about)(that)(sexy)(woman)(in)(the)(halter)(top)(or)(on e's)(intuitions)(about)(the)(honesty)(of)(the)(other)(guy's)(lawyer.)(The)(M OQ's)(hierarchy)(of)(static)(levels)(gives)(us)(the)(tools)(to)(distinguish) (our)(biological)(responses)(to)(Quality)(from)(our)(intellectual)(responses )(to)(Quality.)(Obviously,)(there)(is)(a)(vast)(distance)(between)(them.)(In )(the)(same)(way)(we)(can)(say)(that)(the)(sexy)(woman)(and)(the)(felt)(aest hetic)(harmony)(of)(an)(elegant)(mathematical)(solution)(are)(both)(beautifu l)(but)(these)(are)(different)(kinds)(of)(beauty.)(It)(would)(be)(okay)(to)( describe)(the)(biological)(values)(in)(terms)(of)()(irrational)(urges)(or)(p rimitive)(instincts)(but)(it)(make)(no)(sense)(to)(talk)(about)(our)(philoso phic)(or)(scientific)(intuitions)(in)(such)(terms.) [dmb] And I did already offer further explanation of this point already, Krimel, so that you could see the distinction between gut-intuitions and scientific intuitions.... [Krimel] At best you have stated the obvious that heart burn and hunches are not the same. What you have failed to address is why you think they do not share the common property of irrationality. [dmb offers a MoQ-Lib] "The growth of new ideas and the moments of inspiration we want almost never happen in the absence of static patterns. ... [Krimel] Ok, ok, inspiration is a harmonious shift of static patterns. That is to say static patterns shift in ways that are more rationally pleasing without the aid of rational thinking. Sounds irrational to me. [dmb offers more MoQ-Lib] consider all the training and hard work Poincare had under his belt before he could intuit the mathematical solution in a flash of insight. [Krimel] All of Poincare's rational effort to master his subject matter is evaluated rationally but arises from the irrational, implicit, unconscious, analog processing of all of his conscious effort. [dmb] This is what Pirsig says about the Zen monks too, how the Dynamic is found right in the midst or their static rituals [Krimel] Rituals, like the musical score are static rational, digital, patterned structures engineered to stimulate emotion, contemplation, aesthetic appreciation, mystical experience, enjoyment, certainty, comfort. These are all irrational. [dmb] ...The classroom scenes in ZAMM illustrate this point too. After they had become convinced that Quality is real and they could recognize it even if they couldn't define it, then the standard texts came into their own, he says." [Krimel] The students were coming to recognize an irrational sense of harmony... AND [More MoQ-Libs] "I think vague notions like intuition, inspiration, grooviness can be clarified by the MOQ as we get it in the second book. The levels of static quality sharpen the distinction between, say, the gut feelings of certainty in a mathematician and the gut feelings of a Nazi." [Krimel] Like I have said rationality, conceptualization are a techniques, skills that we acquire to assess our intuitions and irrational judgments. That seems to be what Pirsig is saying... [More MoQ-Libs] We see how the hippies confused DQ with biological quality, etc.. [Krimel] That is certainly a rational assessment. [dmb] [Which is similar to your confusion, Krimel, wherein the dark instincts and irrational urges in a quasi-Freudian sense are equated with DQ.] [Krimel] The question was for you to present a reason why they should not be used as descriptions of the dynamic aspect of Quality. Judging from your response you may have miss the question so let me state it again. Why do you think certain words like irrational should be omitted from our descriptions of the dynamic aspect of Quality? [More MoQ-Lib] "...I really am convinced that inspiration and insight are the rewards of effort, come directly out of the work that it takes to get it right, to get it down. I think this is what the MOQ says and I think this holds true with math, motorcycles or just about anything else, including the MOQ itself." [Krimel] I totally agree. [Previously, Krimel asked about dmb's right to privilege certain words he likes the sound of, over others he does not...] dmb says: Well,~this~is~just~one~more~case~wherein~you~presumptuously~believe~that~you 're~improving~a~feature~of~the~MOQ~when~in~fact~you~just~don't~understand~th at~feature.~You~see~yourself~as~fixing~an~idea~but~I~can~tell~by~what~you're ~saying~that~you~do~not~even~comprehend~that~idea.~This~combination~of~arrog ance~and~presumptuousness~is~very~unbecoming~for~you~and~very~frustrating~fo r~me.~ [Krimel] Yes we know you don't like me. You seem to enjoy speculating on my mental health. Maybe you frustration is the result of your inability to address the issues. [dmb] As!a!matter!of!fact,!when!you!first!announced!your!quest!for!the!"downside"! of!DQ,!Arlo!and!I!both!objected!to!the!notion!as!nonsense,!as!a!quest!predic ated!on!a!misconception!of!DQ!and!we!both!asked!you!to!explain!what!the!hell !you!were!talking!about.!You!never!did!answer!that!objection!and!it!still!st ands.!Now!you're!claiming!to!offer!this!negative!aspect!of!DQ!as!a!correctiv e!because!it!is!"loaded!with!baggage"!of!the!positive!kind,!because!I!am!"sm othered!in!baggage"!of!my!own.!Here!again!I!have!to!ask!what!the!hell!you're !talking!about.!What!baggage!are!you!talking!about?! [Krimel] The usual rehash of the past... [dmb] Look, as I've been saying all along, you are misusing all of the MOQ's most basic terms. [Krimel] No, actually you are claiming a kind of terminological monopoly based on a stunted reading of Pirsig which you peddle as "The MoQ." [dmb] "DQ" is definitely one of them. I tried to showed you, through comparative analysis of the various terms used for "DQ", that we can discern the shape of thing, that we can know what Northrop, James and Pirsig are referring to. Your comments about "DQ" bear no resemblance to the meaning of those terms. At this point, you are no position to critique that term. That comparative analysis, apparently, didn't register, didn't mean anything to you. If you can't grasp the basic meaning of the term, then everything you say about "DQ" will just continue to be nonsensical. [Krimel] You keep repeating these example of what you say that MoQers are allowed to say about DQ. But you don't even seem to understand what they mean. Just two examples ought to do but if you have counter examples please present them. Whitehead calls it a "dim apprehension of we know not what." It's that creepy feeling that someone is watching. The stillness before a thunder storm. The dawning realization that you lost your pills. The feeling of your own mortality. How are these NOT irrational? Or Northrop's "aesthetic continuum." You seem to think that "continuum" only stretches from a smile to a smirk. I want to know why you think it does not include horror, fear and despair. Are these not irrational? How do you justify this? Krimel said: ...I hope that having corrected your misunderstanding about Nietzsche's use of the term "chaos." Perhaps you could explain why in Nietzsche's sense chaos is not a legitimate term to use in a description of the dynamic aspect of Quality? dmb says: Well,-z-that-z-question-z-seems-z-to-z-be-z-predicted-z-on-z-a-z-distortion- z-of-z-something-z-I-z-said-z-about-z-chaos-z-in-z-some-z-other-z-post.-z-Th e-z-criticism-z-was-z-actually-z-about-z-your-z-use-z-of-z-chaos-z-in-z-the- z-scientific-z-and-z-mathematical-z-sense-z---z-as-z-in-z-randomness,-z-prob abilities,-z-coin-z-tosses-z-and-z-the-z-like-z---z-which-z-is-z-not-z-how-z -Pirsig-z-or-z-Nietzsche-z-or-z-James-z-would-z-use-z-it.-z-I'm-z-saying-z-t hat-z-the-z-scientific-z-concepts-z-of-z-chaos-z-have-z-a-z-specific-z-meani ng-z-that-z-cannot-z-rightly-z-be-z-applied-z-to-z-non-scientific-z-concepts -z-of-z-chaos.-z-The-z-kind-z-of-z-chaos-z-Pirsig-z-is-z-talking-z-about,-z- the-z-kind-z-that-z-resulting-z-from-z-neglecting-z-static-z-patterns,-z-for -z-example,-z-simply-z-has-z-nothing-z-to-z-do-z-with-z-the-z-scientific-z-v ersions-z-of-z-chaos.-z-Schopenhauer's-z-notion-z-of-z-primordial-z-chaos,-z -which-z-is-z-what-z-Nietzsche-z-is-z-reacting-z-to,-z-has-z-nothing-z-to-z- do-z-with-z-the-z-mathematic-z-of-z-randomness.-z-I'm-z-just-z-saying-z-that -z-you're-z-confused-z-about-z-the-z-various-z-sense-z-of-z-the-z-word-z-and -z-the-z-contexts-z-in-z-which-z-it-z-is-z-used.-z-They're-z-certainly-z-not -z-interchangeable-z-meanings.-z- [Krimel] This is just more speculation about what you think my motivations are. Worse you go on about things I have not said. My comments to carrie were with respect to a quotation from Nietzsche Gay Science. The one Ant wanted a works cited entry for. E-mail me, I'll send you a copy with the passage highlighted. "Chaos not in the sense that it lacks necessity, but rather in the sense that it lacks order, articulation , form , beauty , wisdom , and whatever else our aesthetic anthropomorphisms might say. As judged by our reason, the unlucky casts of the dice are by far the rule, the exceptions are not the secret purpose." I added, "My problem with your approach is that it focuses entirely on the 'lucky casts.'" Since you ignored this I said, " I hope that having corrected your misunderstanding about Nietzsche's use of the term "chaos." Perhaps you could explain why, in Nietzsche's sense, chaos is not a legitimate term to use in a description of the dynamic aspect of Quality?" You merely repeat your error saying, "...which is not how Pirsig or Nietzsche or James would use it. " You seem to be claiming that Nietzsche could not have said something, he actually said, or that if he did say it, he disagrees with what he said himself. I really don't know how to rephrase the question so that you could understand it well enough to answer it. But please try. [dmb] In fact, I recall you protesting my criticism by claiming that chaos does NOT mean a lack of order. [Krimel] It doesn't according to Nietzsche it does not which is the point you were supposed to address. Please try. [dmb] As Pirsig used the term in that quote about the dangers of neglecting static patterns, that's EXACTLY what it means. [Krimel} Yes, yes everyone agrees on that. So why can't we use the term Pirsig says we would have to embrace as result of our neglect? [dmb] And that is the most ordinary definition of the term, of course, and it's easy to see that Pirsig was using it in that ordinary sense. So bringing in a specialized, scientific version of the term as a way to interpret Pirsig is mixing apples and oranges in a very ham-handed way. [Krimel] Why do you think we are allowed only one definition per word? Who decides what "the most ordinary definition" is? I am not asking about some specialized jargon term. I am asking about a term used in a quote by Nietzsche in the 1887. In the quote above. That one, several lines up. It starts with "Chaos" and ends with "purpose." The one that has been the topic of this conversation for the past several days. My mistake, I thought you were acquainted with it. [dmb] It's like bringing a whaling manual in to settle a debate on the meaning of Melville's famous novel. Moby Dick isn't about really about whales and relying on pure mysticism is not about coin tosses. It's just kind of absurd that you think scientific conceptions of chaos are even relevant to understanding that quote from Pirsig. [Krimel] If you were paying attention you would know that any reference to "scientific conceptions of chaos" was to show how they illuminate Nietzsche quote. I see no reason why that would seem absurd to anyone. [dmb] As I understand it, DQ can have a positive or "negative face", as Pirsig puts it. [Krimel] So why are you saying we can only talk in smile face? What are you arguing here? [dmb] In two of the main examples, the amoeba moves away from the acid and the student jumps off the hot stove. This undifferentiated aesthetic continuum is not biased toward the rosy or the grim. It's always aesthetically charged but you can't characterize it either way in advance or as a general characteristic because it can be any degree of good or bad. [Krimel] To your examples I added Lila, the Phaedrus of ZMM, the Wizard of Oz and Father Abraham. Both of Pirsig's books are about find balance and virtue along The Way and that point cannot be specified in advance. And Your Point is? [dmb] Given the infinite and undefined nature of DQ, your questions and objections just don't make any sense. I can only conclude that you MUST have the wrong idea - in a very fundamental way - about the thing you're trying to fix. [Krimel] I offered a spectrum of words that might be applied the a description of the dynamic aspect of Quality. You raised objections to some of them, then argued my point for me. This post just shows no real engagement with the issues at hand. You also neglected to address this issue from the previous post: dmb says: Right, intuition doesn't come up in Lila because, I think, because in ZAMM it was so directly connected to the romantic style of thought and that's why he ditches the classic-romantic distinction. [Krimel] I think this assertion is completely unwarranted. I believe was covered in the first post in this thread. ___________________________________________________ [Robert Pirsig] A particularly large amount of this time had been spent trying to lay down a first line of division between the classic and romantic aspects of the universe he'd emphasized in his first book. In that book his purpose had been to show how Quality could unite the two. But the fact that Quality was the best way of uniting the two was no guarantee that the reverse was true - that the classic-romantic split was the best way of dividing Quality. It wasn't. [Krimel] He see that the Tao provides a means to unite dualities and begins to consider "the best way to divide" the Tao. He is not looking for the only way to divide the Tao nor does he seek to kill it with his division. He knows he can do not such a thing to the Tao. Not at all. ___________________________________________________ It would be nice for you to at least try or admit that you miss read Pirsig. One of the most serious problems with your attempts to turn Pirsig's works into a game of MadLibs is that you do it so badly. So often what you say about your MoQ-Libs has so little to do with the actual words inside the quotation marks that it leaves the reader wondering whether you read what you were cutting and pasting. 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
