> djh said to dmb: > ... Everyone wants what's good. Everyone wants good things to happen. Good is > the source of all things - right? Reading Lila explains how even folks who > we would consider as evil - such as the Nazi's - thought what they were doing > was good.. > > "The idea that satisfaction alone is the test of anything is very dangerous, > according to the Metaphysics of Quality. There are different kinds of > satisfaction and some of them are moral nightmares. The Holocaust produced a > satisfaction among Nazis. That was quality for them. They considered it to be > practical. But it was a quality dictated by low-level static social and > biological patterns whose overall purpose was to retard the evolution of > truth and Dynamic Quality. James would probably have been horrified to find > that Nazis could use his pragmatism just as freely as anyone else, but > Phaedrus didn't see anything that would prevent it. But he thought that the > Metaphysics of Quality's classification of static patterns of good prevents > this kind of debasement." > > > This is the strength of the MOQ. It provides us with a whole new language > with which we can begin to understand folks values and think about and > discuss which values are good - and those which aren't. > > > dmb responded: > I think you are making no sense, David. The quote illustrates my point, I > think, and not yours.
djh responds to dmb's opening statement: As far as I can see dmb - your wanting to turn this into a dialectical debate of: "is Marsha 'correct'". Your confused by my claims that Marsha has values of her own which are worthy of consideration because your not doing what I recommend - and looking at what *I* value. Not once have I said I think Marsha's words and actions are 'correct' and there's a reason for that. I don't want to defend Marsha's values. I am merely pointing out that her values exist - are real - and worthy of intellectual consideration. More than consideration - they are the whole thing with Marsha - or anyone for that matter. As I keep explaining - the strength of the MOQ is that we are able to openly discuss folks values and intellectually discuss if they're any good or not. > dmb continued: > The idea that Marsha's satisfaction is the test of anything is very > dangerous. There are different kinds of satisfaction but the kind we're > interested in (we being the members of this discussion group) is > intellectual, not social or biological. The use of Nazis as an example is > unfortunate because it's so extremely, obviously horrifying but, like Marsha, > they were also quite satisfied with their anti-intellectualism. As Pirsig > tells it, and I think he's quite right, fascism is essentially driven by > anti-intellectualism. While I don't expect Marsha to be invading Poland > anytime soon, she does share this anti-intellectual attitude with the > fascists, fundamentalist and others on the far right. I think it's super > creepy and degenerate in every case. djh responds: Right. I agree that a philosophy forum is intellectual and the first thing anyone should recognise when they join a philosophy forum is recognise that what they're doing is ultimately degenerate by destroying the ultimately undefinable reality with fixed metaphysical meanings. However, I think a better understanding of Marsha than her being simply 'anti-intellectual' includes what she values. It's too simplistic to call Marsha 'anti-intellectual'. Such a description of 'anti-intellectual' would be fine if the MOQ was composed of only fixed static values - but it isn't. I mean values are the whole thing right dmb? As I keep explaining - I think that it is Marsha's extreme love of *DQ* which is destroying her ability to appreciate the 'staticness' of intellectual values. The key thing here is that the MOQ actually *supports* the fact that Dynamic Quality is the *creator* of intellectual quality and thus the more evolved level of the two. The *code of art* is not about protecting intellectual quality (as you've stated previously) but to allow intellectual quality to be open to DQ. Remember that across all the codes of morality in the MOQ - the higher level of evolution is always in opposition to the lower level. However - advances on the higher level will always benefit the lower level. Thus your not wrong by saying that the code of art protects the intellectual level - but it only does this as a by product of being in *opposition* to it (opening it up to some undefined better thing). So as with all static moral codes the best thing is to find a 'balance' between allowing the higher level precedence but *not* at the cost of destroying the lower level. This is where Marsha goes wrong in her extreme valuing of DQ and I think such an explanation is magnitudes better than her simply being 'anti-intellectual' because if she can actually understand this - then she will begin to respect the 'staticness' of the intellectual level (which is the problem to begin with). > dmb continued some more: > The MOQ's levels are supposed to help prevent this sort of truth relativism, > this degeneracy wherein truth is whatever seems most pleasant for me, and so > we are talking about the importance of intellectual quality in opposition > that kind of regressive, self-serving nonsense. not SOM's value-free science, > not SOM's attitude of objectivity or its correspondence theory of truth, not > the lifeless, hollow, meaningless voice of reason. I'm talking about the > MOQ's expanded rationality, the intellect as the highest form of static > quality, not SOM's value-free science, not SOM's attitude of objectivity, nor > its correspondence theory of truth, not the lifeless voice of disinterested > reason. Marsha sees no difference between the two and she takes the criticism > of SOM's rationality and uses it to bash the MOQ's intellectual values and to > bash philosophy in general. The patient to be cured is rationality and the > disease is SOM. Marsha treats the cured patient (the MOQ's intellectual qua li > ty) as if it were the disease. Marsha wants to kill the patient who was cured > and just left the hospital. It's preposterous. It's backwards and upside > down. And she foolishly quotes the surgeon, as if he wanted his patient to be > gunned down in the hospital's parking lot. djh responds: Right - and I don't disagree with any of that. The most important *intellectual* question about all this though - is *why*? Why does she make the mistake that the cured patient is the disease? We can only answer this question if we look at what she *values*. I have gone into what I think Marsha values - and why she should once again respect the staticness of the intellectual level - above. > dmb said: > ...As the title character illustrates, some people have NO sense of > intellectual quality. It's not a matter of difference, but absence. Not an > alternative vision, but mere blindness. ...I think her anti-intellectualism > is a transparent attempt to turn her own inadequacy into a virtue. She > foolishly uses Pirsig's attack on SOM against anything that involves > intellect, including the MOQ's intellectual values ... > > djh said: > > You seem to be saying - Marsha clearly doesn't value the intellectual level > like I do - she must be wrong - so why should I bother even looking at what > she values or why she values it? It's almost hard to understate the huge > chunks of Lila which would never have been written if Pirsig had the same > attitude. What I'm saying is - what Marsha values - that's the whole thing! > > dmb said: > I think you're way off the mark, David. I'm trying to be polite about it but > I think this is not even debatable. Intellectual values ARE values. Marsha's > anti-intellectualism is an expression of her values. Frankly, I think it's > just kind daft to pretend that these are not the most relevant values, if not > the ONLY relevant values. To the extent that any other kind of static values > trump intellectual quality, according to the MOQ, it is immoral and > degenerate. As Ron pointed out, understanding someone's values might explain > their motives for being intellectually dishonest, evasive, or egotistically > driven, but that doesn't really make any difference. Within the context of > this kind forum, the most appropriate, fair, and honest thing to do is > examine the validity and intellectual quality of the posts. I mean, why > presume there is a better way to discern somebody's values without getting > weird and invasive? I'm with William James on this point; he said that a > person's vision i s > the most important about them. I can see Marsha's vision just fine and it has > no intellectual value. People who care about such things will understand my > complaints, even if Lucy never does. djh responds: Intellectual values are only one set of values and thus do not include the whole picture.. As I said - think of the *huge* chunks of Lila which would never had been written if Pirsig only focused on intellectual values. The whole narrative for a start is about the conflict *between* the different levels. The whole discussion about how the MOQ provides us with a new language with which we can discuss philosophical issues which have lasted for centuries would also have to be removed because they are about conflicts over different levels.. This is most of the book.. And it's not weird and invasive to discuss these values either. These values *are* already us. You're already expressing them in whatever you say whatever you think and how you act. It's just a matter of how openly and effective you are at conveying them to other people. We live in a world today where discussing our values is indeed taboo and yet I think this is very wrong and it has things completely backwards. It's our values which create the way we think - or as you say - our values *are* the way we think - not some by product added on as an afterthought. But the whole thing. And this is my point - there's a reason why 'Lucy' never understands your complaints of her being 'anti-intellectual' because your not speaking to what she values. Above everything Lucy values DQ; if you can show her that by valuing *only* Dynamic Quality and not respecting the staticness of the intellectual level that she will not experience either - only then will you change her mind.. > djh said to dmb: > ...I noticed you value something similar (though you've clearly translated it > to mean something completely different) where you write : " Pirsig's > project..is to expand and improve the intellect, to formally incorporate DQ > into the operations of intellect.." . I'm sure Marsha would agree with you > on that goal! How do you see the MOQ 'formally incorporating DQ into the > operations of intellect'? > > > dmb said: > Marsha value something similar? Oh dude, you are so lost. > > This has been my central point for years and years. This is exactly WHY > anti-intellectualism is so wildly inappropriate for a MOQer. > As Marsha misconstrues it, intellectual quality and Dynamic Quality are > mutually exclusive. (This is very much related to my objection to your > separation of values and intellectual validity.) That is true of SOM, with > its value-free science the attitudes of objectivity fostered by SOM - but > that's not what intellect means in the MOQ. Even in ZAMM, the expansion of > rationality was his stated goal. He did nothing for Quality or the Tao, he > says, what benefitted was reason. By the time we get to Lila, Pirsig even > spells out what this means to the scientific method. > At the end of chapter 29 he says:"The MOQ also says that DQ - the value-force > that chooses an elegant mathematical solution to a laborious one, or a > brilliant experiment of a confusing, inconclusive one - is another matter > altogether. ...Dynamic value is an integral part of science. It is the > cutting edge of scientific progress itself." > > the Buddha said:"Just as the wise accept gold after testing it by heating, > cutting and rubbing it, so are my words to be accepted after examining them, > but not out of respect for me." > > > Even outside of SOM, in the MOQ or in undiluted Buddhism, we still have > science, testing, examination, empirical standards, and logical inconsistency > is still considered to be taboo! > > Pirsig says in chapter 8:"The tests of truth are logical consistency, > agreement with experience, and economy of explanation. The MOQ satisfies > these." > And, similarly, the Dali Lama said:"A general stance of Buddhism is that it > is inappropriate to hold a view that is logically inconsistent. This is > taboo. But even more taboo than holding a view that is logically inconsistent > is holding a view that goes against direct experience." > > As Ms. Wrong construes it, meditation and thinking carefully are mutually > exclusive. Kill all intellectuals patterns, she says (taking the passage out > of context of its subsequent qualifiers), kill them all. This is also totally > not true. > > Traleg Rinpoche says: > "In the Buddha's early discourses on the Four Noble Truths, the Noble > Eightfold Path begins with the cultivation of the correct view...Without a > conceptual framework, meditative experiences would be totally > incomprehensible. What we experience in meditation has to be properly > interpreted, and its significance -or lack thereof- has to be understood. > This interpretive act requires appropriate conceptual categories and the > correct use of those categories... .While we are often told that meditation > is about emptying the mind, that it is the discursive, agitated thoughts of > our mind that keeps us trapped in false appearances, meditative experiences > are in fact impossible without the use of conceptual formulations... ." djh responds: I hope this doesn't detract from my main point however I think that it's wrong to say that Dynamic Quality and intellectual quality aren't mutually exclusive. Dynamic Quality by definition is *not static quality*. By saying that Dynamic Quality and intellectual quality is part of Dynamic Quality is like answering the question 'does a dog have a Buddha nature' with a 'Yes - he does.' This is wrong. The correct answer to the question is Mu. The thing which both Dynamic Quality and intellectual quality have in common isn't Dynamic Quality but - as their names imply - Quality. So I think you have Marsha's problem back to front - Marsha is *trying* to include both Dynamic Quality and static quality (including intellectual quality) together in the one thing by saying that static quality is 'change'. This is clearly wrong.. The only way Marsha takes the 'kill all intellectual patterns' out of context is by thinking that this translates into removing the clear distinction between both Dynamic Quality and intellectual quality by combining them into the same thing. This doesn't result in intellectual quality or Dynamic Quality but chaos and intellectual meaningless. Furthermore the quote about killing all intellectual patterns isn't about simply killing intellectual patterns - but how to experience Dynamic Quality while maintaining only biological and social patterns.. "While sustaining biological and social patterns Kill all intellectual patterns. Kill them completely And then follow Dynamic Quality And morality will be served." 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
