> djh replied: > Sorry dmb, it seems you're misunderstanding me. I don't think that it is > always wrong to have any kind of intellectual conversation'. [...] I do > think it's important to recognise that before you commence a philosophical > discussion that you recognise that it is degenerate in its own way as Pirsig > does at the start of Lila.. [...] ...it is important to remember that sq is > unavoidable and yet destroys DQ no matter what you want to try. > > > dmb said: > Dude, please look at your flip-flopping self. You can't deny the view and > then assert it a few moments later. It's NOT always wrong AND it's important > to recognize the degeneracy of philosophical discussion before you even > start?! You're talking out of both sides, David.
djh responds: Or talking *from* both sides. Indeed I am. From a mystic perspective the MOQ is indeed degenerate. But from an intellectual perspective the MOQ is very valuable - unavoidable even.. We cannot avoid defining things dmb - so we might as well get these definitions as good as we can.. This 'both sides' point of view is expounded in the Pirsig quotes I've provided already and even the very last sentence of Lila: "Good as a noun rather than an adjective is all the Metaphysics of Quality is about. *Of course, the ultimate Quality isn't a noun or an adjective or anything else definable*, but if you had to reduce the whole Metaphysics of Quality to a single sentence, that would be it." > dmb continued: > And what about the most important distinction I made? You didn't even mention > it! Again - please hear this idea: It is degenerate to define the ineffable > mystic reality (DQ) because that a case of trying to squeeze reality itself > into static intellectual patterns. But this problem, this violation, does NOT > apply to philosophical terms. They are just static intellectual patterns, not > the mystic reality. They ARE supposed to be definable and, except for "DQ" of > course, it is NOT degenerate to define Pirsig's philosophic terms.. > Metaphysics isn't easy to define but it has gone out of style because it is > supposed to deal with "the fundamental nature of being and the world. > Pirsig's "metaphysics" avoids any definition of exactly that: the fundamental > nature of the world is, for a mystic, outside of language, outside of > concepts and is known directly, prior to words and concepts. djh responds: That's all fine except for the fact that, as you allude to, "Dynamic Quality" is a static quality definition of Dynamic Quality. So unfortunately even Pirsig fails to avoid definition of exactly that. But this is its intellectual strength - a good thing about the MOQ is that it firstly 'defines' Dynamic Quality in order to put it aside and then continue on into the static quality patterns. In other words - the MOQ recognises that it is being degenerate by defining DQ and so it has this understanding built into the very first division so that it doesn't have to worry so much about being degenerate and it can get stuck into the nitty gritty of static quality.. So really - even the term 'Dynamic Quality' is a partial definition of that which cannot be named and so in its own way - is degenerate.. Mystically so. > dmb continued more: > But I am just talking about concepts. I'm just talking about the meaning of > the words in Pirsig's books. Don't you see the difference? Marsha doesn't… > And just think about it for a minute. How does it make sense to say that it's > degenerate to define words and concepts? That's just asinine. It's > ridiculous, especially in this context. The truth is, I think, that a place > like this COULD be where real living philosophy happens. Imagine a group of > people seriously engaged in thinking together. I've seen this happen in book > discussion groups but only when people are fairly serious about the material. > Anti-intellectualism is certainly poisonous to any such hopes for this place. djh responds: I find it fascinating that you think it's 'asinine' to say that it's 'degenerate to define words and concepts' when Pirsig has actually gone one further and said that it's degenerate to not only be born but to have a thought of that person being born… "The only person who doesn't pollute the mystic reality of the world with fixed metaphysical meanings is a person who hasn't yet been born — and to whose birth no thought has been given. The rest of us have to settle for being something less pure. Getting drunk and picking up bar-ladies and writing metaphysics is a part of life." - Lila No matter what you say or do or think - whether you like it or not - you are making fixed metaphysical statements about what both is and is not good. So this all goes back to my description of Marsha's values and the mistake that she makes. The mistake that Marsha makes isn't her claim that it's degenerate to define things (it is) - but that she can somehow avoid this degeneracy by blurring the distinction between Dynamic Quality and intellectual quality. To 'pretend' that they're really the same thing. To say that static patterns of value are 'ever-changing' as if we can capture that elusive Dynamic Quality into a static definition and ignore the clear distinction which actually exists between the two. > dmb said finally: > You know, everything would be smooth and groovy if only you'd just consider > my values. Don't you realize that I have values as a unique person, therefore > my views should not be held to any kind of intellectual standards. I feel > strongly about this, see, because I was raised in the suburbs (a very exotic > culture that you couldn't possibly understand). > > But seriously, David. I thought your "overall point" was dead and buried long > ago. Sorry, I just think you're making no sense and quite vaguely too. Maybe > you'd like to demonstrate this method of "considering values". Show us how > one looks at Marsha's values apart from the considerations of intellectual > coherence. Use Marsha's favorite salad of words for an example, please. You > know, the one she repeats so often and in which she describes static patterns > as "ever-changing". For the sake of argument, I'll pretend that the > intellectual values (or lack thereof) don't merit consideration while you do > what you're telling me to do. Show me what it is. I honestly can't imagine > how that would actually work. > > Go for it. I'll watch very carefully, I swear on a stack of dictionaries. djh responds: I really do appreciate your honesty dmb however - I have actually been doing *exactly* this. I have even been alluding to Marsha's description of static patterns as 'changing'.. If an exact quotation of 'ever-changing' is what you'd prefer then so be it.. djh previously: "Marsha clearly values intellectual quality enough to come on a philosophical discussion board. That's more than some. She's also taken a course in logic too. That's even more than some.. So I don't think she's 'intellectually nowhere'. She just doesn't value the intellectual level *very* much.. Especially one of those things which governs the intellectual level - called logic. Why is that? Because her own personal values *have* altered her own ideas about truth and logic.. In fact, specifically, I think it's her extreme value of DQ which has her trying to incorporate it within static things which are *not* DQ such as logic and the intellectual level. Why else would she continually insist that static patterns [are] *[ever]-chang[ing]*?" and again: " But I do think that Marsha follows virtue like everyone else. Believe it or not; like almost everyone else - Marsha thinks her actions and words are good. In fact, I think she is using the logic of the MOQ in her thinking. She is seeing the parts of Lila which emphasise the value of DQ over sq and holding on to those parts and saying that these justify a complete change to the way intellectual level works. If you can understand why she thinks that - then you're in a much better position - than when you began. " and again: "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. and again: "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)." and finally: " 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 '[ever-]chang[ing]'. This is clearly wrong.. " 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
