dmb,
At least state my explanation of static patterns of value correctly, as I present it. It's not "ever-changing static patterns", it's: Static patterns of value are repetitive processes (multiple events), conditionally co-dependent, impermanent and ever-changing, that pragmatically tend to persist and change within a stable, predictable pattern. Within the MoQ, these patterns are morally categorized into a four-level, evolutionary, hierarchical structure: inorganic, biological, social and intellectual. Static quality exists in stable patterns relative to other patterns. Patterns have no independent, inherent existence. Marsha On Apr 26, 2013, at 3:05 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: > "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
