[djh] Firstly Arlo I really appreciate your taking the effort to explain things to me in my own words. I think you probably understand me when I say that what we value is more important than the logic we use. If you can speak to what someone values then you have a chance to change their mind - but not before.
> [djh] > Not social value. I think above all else Marsha values DQ. DQ is also > outside of intellectual value and logic. > > [Arlo] > I think this is generous, but wrong. For two main reasons. [djh] You say a lot in a few words in this first main reason(I like your style) so I think it best if I respond to each sentence(or part thereof). > [Arlo] > First, "dynamic quality" is the source of intellectual quality. [djh] Agree. > [Arlo] > It is not an "either/or" option, it is not "intellectual quality OR dynamic > quality", [djh] This is both true and false. It's true that a good life involves both intellectual values and an openness to Dynamic Quality. However logically it *is* an either/or option between DQ and sq. You cannot have both otherwise you are speaking in condractions and being the intellectual that I am I don't like contradictions.. Dynamic Quality is defined as *not static quality*. > [Arlo] > Pirsig's intellectual thesis was built by Pirsig 'valuing' DQ (I'm using your > way of speaking here, but I find wordings like this cumbersome and redundant). [djh] I think it's far from redundant as without our values we quite literally do not exist. Or as others on this forum might like to frame it - without the values which form 'us' - 'we' do not exist. That said - we'd need to be careful about saying that we 'value' DQ - as Marsha provides a good example of what can happen when we take this too far. DQ really isn't some static *thing* to be valued.. > [Arlo] > What is valued intellectually all derives from the impetus towards > 'betterness'. Think of it this way, 'coherence' IS Dynamic Quality manifest > at the intellectual level. Being coherent is not in opposition to DQ, any > more than being harmonious is something musicians should deliberately avoid > just because its 'a static pattern'. [djh] I disagree with this. Logically speaking 'coherence' is a static value. Logically speaking - DQ is not static and so 'coherence' is not DQ. If you blur the line between what is and is not DQ like this then you are going down the rabbit hole of intellectual meaninglessness. > [Arlo] > Second, there a hundreds of more "DQish" forums around the internet, from Zen > lists to lists about poetry and art and lists devoted to sharing free-form, > unstructured 'words'. If this was simply a rejection of all 'intellectual > values' under the auspice that such a rejection was ipso facto 'artistic' or > 'DQish', why is she here, in a philosophy forum, built around the premise of > intellectual quality and Pirsig's ideas. As I said, Marsha is here for social > quality, and I include under that umbrella the psycho-egotistical roleplay > that she gets out of 'being Lila'. I've already mentioned the baiting and > evidence of attention seeking in the increased frequency of "I define..." > posts. Do you think that is following Dynamic Quality? If she genuinely was > pursuing "DQ" this forum wouldn't even make its way into her awareness, she'd > be off sculpting, or painting, or making rotisseries, or writing koans, or > meditating, or any of the myriad of activities that she seems to think are > closer to DQ than wasting time on intellectual quality. To join a philosophy > forum to tell everyone that philosophy is pedantic is rather arrogant and, > from the MOQ's perspective, stuck in an SOM view of intellectual quality. [djh] This is the best explanation of why Marsha values social quality above all things I have read; however it has failed to convince me that's *all* she values. If you haven't already - pretend for a moment you're in Marsha's shoes - Let's say you're an artistic type and you value DQ above all things.. (Which on its own is logically supported by the MOQ). Now lets say you hear that - and that's where your thinking about the MOQ stops.. All you hear is - "DQ is the *source* of intellectual quality". Wouldn't that just make your day? Here's something *intellectual* which says that the artistic types had it right all along.. Now we both know where Marsha takes her thinking on this.. It's in the wrong direction.. It's in the direction of blurring the lines between what is intellectual and what is DQ. Her strong value of DQ has turned into something static and has started to take over her intellectual level to the point where she is now not so open to DQ after all… Her understanding of what is DQ and what is sq has now become so muddied and blurry it's difficult for her to tell the difference between the two.. So - who's right… Is Marsha just here for social values? Or is she logically using the MOQ to support her value of DQ but missing out because of her misunderstanding… Or (as is likely) is it a mixture and evolutionarily Marsha could go either way depending on her own life decisions... Personally I think the principle of charity(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) is a good one to live by… You know - hope for the best - plan for the worst … but I can understand other arguments.. > [djh] > Like all intellectual values - what we deem logical or illogical is > culturally derived. > > [Arlo] > Agree. > > [djh] > To the extent that we are each our own values - we will each have our own > sense of what is and is not 'logical'. > > [Arlo] > I'll agree in part, although I think 'have our own sense' needs some > unpacking and clarification. Perhaps you mean although we all share the same > basic understanding of the word, we will generate nuances to how we > understand it based on our ontogenetic and sociohistorical development. > Although I don't think 'nuancical' differences in understanding 'logic' are > at play here. What I think is at play is the SOM-driven rejection of ALL > intellectual patterns versus the MOQ-driven expansion of rationality to move > beyond SOM on the intellectual level. [djh] No - by 'our own sense' I don't mean slight differences in logic based on our ontogenetic and sociohistorical development. That's far too dry for what I'm talking about - What I mean by 'our own sense' is that we will each have our own sense of what is valuable depending on what we statically value. From those static values we determine what is both logical and illogical. In regards to the SOM-driven rejection of all intellectual patterns - again I think it's more interesting to talk about what we value… If Marsha is intent on rejecting SOM - why is that? I think she is rejecting SOM because she values DQ.. That DQ is the source of intellectual values is one of the main messages of ZMM and there are many quotes thoughout Lila which support this too.. More precisely - the trouble is that Marsha confuses the ZMM rejection of SOM and value of DQ with a rejection of the clear line between intellectual values and DQ.. > [Arlo] > Compare the 'rhetoric' between Marsha and DMB. DMB attacks incoherence > (whether or not you agree with his manners), whereas Marsha attacks > philosophy itself. DMB attacks contradictions, Marsha attacks DMB for talking > about James or pragmatism or, basically, for what she miscontrues as > 'philosophology'. DMB is trying to strengthen the intellectual level, Marsha > is trying to destroy the intellectual level. When you look beyond their > heated choices of words, that is the pattern that comes out time and time > again. [djh] I agree with all of that except for your statement of the following Marsha value - "Marsha is trying to destroy the intellectual level". I don't necessarily agree with that.. I agree that she is destroying the intellectual level but hopefully in this post I have described an alternative thesis which shows that it is her *over* value of DQ which is inadvertently destroying the intellectual level.. > [Arlo] > To be fair, I've found Marsha's comments relating to eastern philosophies > interesting, and I think Pirsig's ideas can be strengthened by aligning his > ideas with the East in the same way DMB is aligning his ideas with the West. > These are, in and of themselves, not incompatible, and even a cursory read of > Northrop can see why Pirsig himself tried to forge a bridge. But, again, look > back over the archives and you'll see that DMB is not condemning or > dismissing Nargarjuna (for example), he is condemning and dismissing > incoherence. Marsha, on the other hand, IS condemning or dismissing James (or > at best passing it off as irrelevant but quaint for a simpleton like DMB to > find interesting). Again, look over what they are attacking in each other > behind the heated rhetoric, and you'll see this specific tension over and > over in the archives. [djh] Can't disagree with any of that.. I'd be lying if I said Marsha hasn't had more than enough chance to at least try and see some value in what DMB is saying.. But this conversation ain't no one-way street… 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
