In Paul's paper he says: "... the unpatterned-patterned, Dynamic-static distinction itself, by highlighting the limited scope of patterns of thought, should be seen as a device to PREVENT the notion of an ultimate structure of reality itself rather than to propose a new one. With everything subordinated to unpatterned value, we find that “reality itself” is just the name given to the most valuable explanations and assumptions held by a given CULTURE."
And later after "translating" Pirsig's statements in Lila Ch8 with the first and second context concepts ... "Related to this is the debate about whether static patterns are “real” or “merely conceptual.” Again, BOTH positions are supported by one of the two contexts so a “final answer” cannot be given. Rather, one must select the context which is of MOST VALUE FOR THE CURRENT PURPOSE." And later: "the term “pre-intellectual,” which is mostly used within context (1), as exemplified in the statement above, could be modified to “pre-static” (i.e. the experience of value prior to its contextualisation into any static patterns) when used within context (2) so as not to erroneously relate Dynamic Quality SOLELY to the intellectual level of evolution. My emphases. I agree with everything Paul says. The error is those (correctly) aiming to devise an interpretation of the MoQ in academic-philosophy-space (as needs must) - must not presume that quality defined intellectually in this context (culture of academic dialectical argument) represents the sole (or whole) definition of intellectual quality - because this is a too-static definition of intellect for the world as a whole. I have many times expressed my support for those who tenaciously stick to their closed logical objective dialectic, when their aim is to further MoQ in philosophical academe. But I strenuously reject the idea that this limitation applies to discourse (and practical and rhetorical use) of MoQ in the wider world, and therefore this limit must NOT apply to MD itself. (Minor editorial comment - mis-spelling of Parmenidean (as Parminedian) after the Lila Ch8 references.) And as Paul goes on to elaborate the alternative logics of Buddhism complete the circle. It's not a question of those branded as "mystics" being anti-intellectual, it's a matter of retaining both contexts for a fuller description of the world and action within it beyond philosophical academe. (It is supremely ironic and more than a little sad, that DMB turns out to be the arch dialectician in arguing for MoQ in the professional philosophic context - Pirsig's Bulldog I call him - when along with Pirsig I was able to say "I love DMB" when he previously expressed his imaginative take on the Orphic mythos and Campbell's Masks of God, etc.) Regards Ian On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 5:48 AM, Ian Glendinning <[email protected]> wrote: > Ant said, > >> I have now published Paul Turner's new paper about this issue 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 some way.' >> >> Paul's paper can be found here: >> >> http://www.robertpirsig.org/Two%20Contexts%20of%20the%20MOQ.htm >> > Ian says. Good. That's what I mean by balance. If there are two > perspectives, recognise both, and be respectful of the other's perspective, > rather than argue one over the other. I will read what Paul has to say. > > Respect is the only rule. > Ian 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
