"The Metaphysics of Quality itself is static and should be separated from the
Dynamic Quality it talks about. Like the rest of the printed philosophic
tradition it doesn't change from day to day, although the world it talks about
does. ...The static language of the Metaphysics of Quality will never capture
the Dynamic reality of the world...."
There are similarities between chess and philosophy, Pirsig says. I think this
should be the manifesto for this forum, where the aim is to get in there and
play the game well...
"Both are highly intellectual pursuits in which one tries to manipulate symbols
within a set of rules to improve a given situation. In chess one can benefit
greatly by studying the games of the masters. In philosophy one can also
benefit greatly by studying the writings of the great philosophers. But the
important point here is that studying chess masters is not chess itself and
studying philosophy masters is not philosophy itself. The real chess is the
game you play with your neighbor. Real chess is 'muddling through.' Real chess
is the triumph of mental organization over complex experience. And so is real
philosophy."
David Harding said:
That there's a created dichotomy between values and intellectual consistency
doesn't mean that we ought to support just one or the other.
Arlo replied:
I disagree. "Consistency" IS a value. It is not 'after-value' or opposed to
value or something like this. Supporting intellectual consistency is really
nothing more than supporting intellectual quality. Of course, "consistency" is
not the only intellectual value. Pirsig lists several others, and I think we in
an overall totality its all of these things together that make a sort of total
quality for whatever idea is being presented.
dmb says:
According to SOM, intellect and values are two different things - and that is
the problem with SOM. The MOQ, by CONTRAST, is what you get with the formal
recognition of Quality in the operations of intellect AND the MOQ says that
intellectual truths are the most evolved, most dynamic and most moral kind of
static value. It is a species of the good, subordinate only to DQ itself.
And yes, of course there is more to intellectual quality than just logical
consistency, just as there is more to writing than just grammar and spelling
and there is more to motorcycle maintenance than just mechanical reasoning and
good tools. You gotta have a feel for the work to know what's good. Pirsig
shows us what excellence means with the writing lessons in Bozeman classroom
scenes and of course his central metaphor, he says, is a miniature study in the
art of rationality. There are countless factors involved in distinguishing
artful rationality from artless rationality but when somebody presents a
contradictory claim or a logical inconsistency (over and over again), then
logical coherence becomes an issue.
My complaints about the incoherence of "ever-changing static patterns" are NOT
based on the belief that logic is supreme or that definitions give us the
essential truth of reality, of course. They are based on the totally
uncontroversial "belief" that incoherence in thought and speech is bad. How is
that even debatable? Of course it's no good to be logically inconsistent. What
could be more obvious? If intellect is an art form, then using the key
philosophical terms in a contradictory way will mark you as a hack, as a very
bad artist. It's like the would-be novelist who doesn't understand drama or
grammar. There's not much chance they're gonna produce anything artful. As Arlo
said,...
Arlo said to David Harding:
... there are many "Zen" and/or various "art" discussion forums all over the
Internet. I'm sure in the vast majority of poetry groups, for example, Marsha
would not be called out for inconsistency or incoherence. But this is a
philosophy forum, David, or at least it is 'by name'. The purpose of this forum
IS intellectual quality. I mean, intellectual quality MATTERS. Crafting an idea
is no different than crafting a painting or building a rotisserie. Of all
places, you think intellectual quality would be most important here. Instead,
many seem to think jettisoning the entire idea of an intellectual quality in
favor of a banal relativism is the way to go.
dmb says:
Exactly. We could even examine the nature of this forum in light of the MOQ's
evolutionary morality. Since it's simply impossible to put the immediate flux
of experience into an email, we are limited to exchanges of static quality. And
since we don't want a philosophical discussion to be dominated by social or
biological values, we are led to a very obvious conclusion. Intellectual
quality is the standard and the goal, the coin of the realm. Reality itself is
undefinable and can't be contained in words or books. But we can talk about
books and metaphysics spelled out therein. Words are definable and metaphysics
must be definable and knowable. There is no metaphysics without that and the
MOQ is the one we're here to talk about.
David Harding said:
...There are no 'false' ideas. There is no one 'true' answer. Just a whole
bunch of quality ideas. Some of them good. Some of them not so good.
Arlo replied:
I'm not sure who you think is being attacked for "false" ideas as presented
against the backdrop of "one true answer". I see only arguments being put forth
showing the very low quality of some. And I also see a lot of baiting and
frustrations, repetitions and passive-aggressive socializations. Also be
clear about one thing, Marsha doesn't want this to end. She wants the
attention. You watch,...
dmb says:
The MOQ rejects the idea of a single, exclusive truth. It rejects "objective"
truth in favor of pragmatic truth. So, yea, there is not just one 'true' answer
but it simply doesn't follow that "there are no 'false' ideas." Do we take the
phrase "biological quality" to mean that nobody ever got sick or injured or
died? Of course not. And the same goes for "intellectual quality". It doesn't
mean that all ideas are inherently good. Quality always has that negative face
and includes the repulsive as well as the attractive. When you say, "I have bad
feeling about this _____", it show a sensitivity to the quality of thing every
bit as much as when you say, "Oh, this is good!" You can get to excellence
either way, following the good and rejecting the bad are just two sides of the
same coin. Betterness is the result either way.
I think incorrigibility is one of the worst kinds of negative intellectual
quality. It kills the possibility of betterness. It's intellectual death,
basically. Total stasis. That's what makes Marsha's parrot routine so sad,
unless and at odds with the point and purpose of this forum. It's just a
refusal to play the game, a refusal to do any real philosophy. She never
muddles through. She only weasels out - usually by denigrating the game and/or
the players.
"Both [are highly intellectual pursuits in which one tries to manipulate
symbols within a set of rules to improve a given situation. In chess one can
benefit greatly by studying the games of the masters. In philosophy one can
also benefit greatly by studying the writings of the great philosophers. But
the important point here is that studying chess masters is not chess itself and
studying philosophy masters is not philosophy itself. The real chess is the
game you play with your neighbor. Real chess is 'muddling through.' Real chess
is the triumph of mental organization over complex experience. And so is real
philosophy."
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
