Hello everyone I'd like to make a few comments about Paul Turner's new paper. To begin, perhaps it might be better to look at the quote in full from Lila's Child concerning annotation 97:
RMP Annotation 97 Within the MOQ, the idea that static patterns of value start with the inorganic level is considered to be a good idea. But the MOQ itself doesn’t start before sentience. The MOQ, like science, starts with human experience. Remember the early talk in ZMM about Newton’s Law of Gravity? Scientific laws without people to write them are a scientific impossibility. DG: This seems another area that philosophic idealism would help clarify? RMP: Definitely. I read somewhere that there are 21 competing and conflicting laws of gravity. What is poor earth to do? DG: Clearly “something” (RMP: object?) existed before we (RMP: subject?) became sentient. RMP: I think this statement leads down the primrose path of subject/object metaphysics. The idea that “something existed before we became sentient” is an idea that did not exist before we came sentient. It’s like the law of gravity in ZMM. DG: It seemed better to apply sentience to the individual rather than to humanity as a whole, so “before sentience” simply means before we (you, me, the reader) became sentient. After all, social and intellectual patterns of value are not about groups of people. So in that context it seemed to me Newton’s law of gravity is an idea that existed before we (unless someone reading this is 300 years old) became sentient. Of course, now I see that since ideas do not pertain to groups but to the individual, that idea could not have existed before I became sentient. These ideas must coexist as value levels, but how? RMP: In the late 1800’s the chicken-and-egg argument about whether ideas precede inorganic nature or inorganic nature precedes ideas was considered philosophically important. No one to my knowledge has ever shown that the idealists who considered ideas to come first have been wrong. The discussion has since died away. It is important for an understanding of the MOQ to see that although “common sense” dictates that inorganic nature came first, actually “common sense” which is a set of ideas, has to come first. This “common sense” is arrived at through a huge web of socially approved evaluations of various alternatives. The key term here is “evaluation,” i.e., quality decisions. The fundamental reality is not the common sense or the objects and laws approved of by common sense but the approval itself and the quality that leads to it. DG: In my reading of William James, I noticed he often used the term “agreement” in a similar fashion to how you’re using the terms “approval” and “affirmative” so I took the time to look up each root word in the Practical Standard Dictionary: Approve: to regard as worthy, proper, or right; commend; sanction; ratify; confirm. Affirm: to declare or state positively; make (a statement) and maintain (it) to be true; maintain; assert; aver. Agree: to come into or be in harmony; be of one mind; concur. When you say Dynamic Quality is always affirmative, at first I took it to mean that DQ is always positive. By comparing all three terms, however, I sense a common thread of evaluation leading to confirmation, which is neither positive nor negative. Those terms come later, after further intellectualization. Is that your thinking too? RMP: Yes, my statement that Dynamic Quality is always affirmative was not a wise statement, since it constitutes a limitation or partial definition of Dynamic Quality. Whenever one talks about Dynamic Quality someone else can take whatever is said and make a static pattern out of it and then dialectically oppose that pattern. The best answer to the question, “What is Dynamic Quality?” is the ancient Vedic one——“Not this, not that.” DG: It seems common sense to believe that the “something” which existed before our awareness equates with what we call history. Still, there is no possibility of our ever knowing with certainty what took place before our experience of the world arose. Laws, on the other hand, seem eternal, if we do indeed assume that “something” exists apart from our experience (though we can never say with certainty what that something is). A law is the same each time we encounter it. Confusion seems to arise in assuming a law and the idea of a law to be the same. RMP: How can they be different? DG: Please see your note 130. Doesn’t it imply reality and the concept (idea) of reality are not the same? RMP: I don’t see what you are referring to in Note 130. In the MOQ, laws are a species of intellectual patterns that are associated with a lot of social authority and are slow to change. I don’t think they have any objective status at all. Ideas about laws are another set of intellectual patterns. Thus, they are both intellectual patterns, and as such, are the same. DG: I was referring to your statement: “The Buddhists would say it [the concept of “I”] is certainly central to a concept of reality but it is not central to or even a part of reality itself.” It may be that I am interpreting your statement incorrectly, but it appears to me that the Buddhists are saying reality itself is not a concept or an intellectual pattern of value. For instance, a materialist might dream that someday science will develop a theory of everything. On the other hand, an idealist might tend to side with the Buddhists in saying intellectual concepts of reality are not central to or even part of reality itself? That we will never develop a theory of everything? That there’s no chance we can ever intellectually know reality? RMP: The confusion here seems to result from the two languages of Buddhism, the language of the Buddha’s world and language of everyday life. In the language of everyday life, reality and intellect are different. From the language of the Buddha’s world, they are the same, since there is no intellectual division that governs the Buddha’s world. Dan comments: This discussion on #97 was enlightening to me on many levels that I am unsure this one email can do justice to them all. First of all, please note that there are not 2 contexts introduced into the MOQ but rather alluded to in Buddhism. The 2 contexts of the MOQ are subject/object metaphysics and the more expanded rationality offered by the MOQ. Note carefully that from the language of the Buddha's world there is no intellectual division. Second, he reiterates that gravity and the law of gravity cannot be anything but the same. The MOQ does NOT claim that static quality exists prior to experience. This is the source of a great deal of confusion and I see the same idea promulgated here: "Within context (2), *within the static mythos, *the world does exist outside of the human imagination, inorganic and biological patterns predate the existence of humans, gravitation existed before Newton and evolution before Darwin. Dynamic Quality is seen as the undefined betterness towards which static patterns migrate and evolve." Dan comments: Outside of those who have read Lila, the MOQ has yet to work its way into the mythos of our culture. It appears to me what Paul names "static mythos" might be more simply named the "mythos," which describes subject/object metaphysics, or what the MOQ is designed to expand upon. We have to remember that in the MOQ the pre-existence of static quality is a good idea but there is no way to verify this one way or the other. I know most of you have said how you paid little attention to the discussions between myself and David Harding but we've been over this many times. I am not at all sure why I am bothering writing to this group other than Paul's mention of the MOQ discussions of late. Perhaps he reads some of my posts, at least. In my opinion, the two contexts of the "MOQ" that Paul is talking about might actually be the subject/object metaphysics versus the MOQ proper. Again, I went over this with Harding at least a dozen times. RMP begins from that perspective before leading the reader into the MOQ specifics. It seems a pity no one bothered with reading our discussion. Hell, even Harding didn't seem to read it. Anyway, it is good to see these quotes from Lila's Child being used even if I do not completely agree with the analysis Paul offers. Thank you, Dan http://www.danglover.com On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 5:50 PM, Ant McWatt <[email protected]> wrote: > Ant said to all, June 7th 2013: > > I have now published Paul Turner's new paper... at robertpirsig.org. > Paul says: > > 'I've updated my "Two Theses" post from 2005 and changed it to "Two > Contexts" which seems more appropriate. Looking at the MD lately I think a > lot of time is wasted by people arguing from one context against the other > so I hope this helps reduce that in someway.' > > Paul's paper can be found here: > > http://www.robertpirsig.org/Two%20Contexts%20of%20the%20MOQ.htm > > > dmb said June 7th: > > Paul's new paper is really beautiful. Perfect. I hope that it'll be widely > read and quoted. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > Adrie agreed June 8th: > > Yes, you are right, David,and as i've kept on reading it again and again,i > realised the beauty of it altogether. > > Turners paper is crystal clear, of the highest level, neat and crisp. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > Dave, Adrie, > > Many thanks to you both for the feedback and your kind words. I think > it's a damn good piece of work as well! > > Best wishes, > > Ant > > > > 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
