> "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 said: > 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,…
David responds: Right. But what is intellectual consistency? That is - being consistent with experience. What is experience but a bunch of values? Someone doesn't expound things thinking they're being inconsistent. They'll expound things based on the values which they hold. If you see a contradiction in what someone writes and they don't acknowledge it or do not see value in that contradiction then there is a *reason* why. That *reason* is what's important. You could go blue in the face saying how inconsistent someone is but if they do not value the distinctions which are created and to which you are explaining they are being inconsistent about then nothing will change. The important thing isn't the inconsistency - but the values of the participants of the discussion. > 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 said: > 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 responds: Right I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment dmb. I might as well mention what I mentioned to Arlo as well - there is an important distinction (which I feel a few members on this forum could heed) between talking intellectually *about* the levels and talking from the perspective of each of the levels.. The biggest offender in this regard is the distinction between DQ and intellectual quality. I have no problems with folks demonstrating DQ on here(so long as they avoid sq :-) ). But the issues begin when they fail to realise that they are talking *from* the perspective of DQ and not intellectually *about* DQ. > 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 said: > 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. David responds: You will only get a good result through the 'negative' technique without showing something better is if (in a rare instance) the person you are discussing with both A) Has similar values. and B) Agrees that there is a problem and is open to living without an alternative for a while.. Otherwise - all you have done by pointing out inconsistency in their eyes - is called them a name. Most unsolved disagreements between two people are a result of not of bad logic (though it certainly plays a role) but a difference of values. The values are the important thing - not the logic behind the thinking. The one informs the other. Unless you can show someone something better - then nothing will change… There's a reason why folks might sometimes appear to refuse to see what you do… Why is that? That's the most important question... “If someone's ungrateful and you tell him he's ungrateful, okay, you've called him a name. You haven't solved anything.” - RMP 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
