Hello Dan, Thanks for your thoughtful response to my paper. I was going to reply privately but decided that as your comments were public my reply should be public too.
Dan said: 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. Paul: As I said in my paper, context (1) is not the same as the “language of the buddha’s world.” Both of the contexts I distinguish are static patterns which make intellectual divisions. Dan said: Second, he reiterates that gravity and the law of gravity cannot be anything but the same. Paul: Yes, but here you are just taking the position of context (1) against (2). In context (2) we are inside the intellectual pattern of the MOQ and within it inorganic and biological patterns predate humans and gravitation is presumed to be an inorganic pattern. Try reading LILA chapter 11 with the assumption that nothing exists without human intellect. Look at this paragraph as an example: Now when we come to the chemistry professor, and see him studying his empirically gathered data, trying to figure out what it means, this person makes more sense. He's not just some impartial visitor from outer space looking in on all this with no purpose other than to observe. Neither is he some static, molecular, objective, biological machine, doing all this for absolutely no purpose whatsoever. We see that he's conducting his experiments for exactly the same purpose as the subatomic forces had when they first began to create him billions of years ago. He's looking for information that will expand the static patterns of evolution itself and give both greater versatility and greater stability against hostile static forces of nature. Also, see chapter 24 of LILA where it is stated that “Gravitation is an inorganic pattern of values.” Dan said: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: Paul: I didn’t say static quality exists prior to experience. I define experience as “the ongoing emergence of static patterns of value from Dynamic Quality,” therefore, in context (2), inorganic and biological patterns are not excluded from this emergence by the absence of humans. In context (1) experience is limited to the emergence of intellectual patterns which contain “every last bit” of the world. This definition of experience retains the precedence of Dynamic Quality over emergent static patterns (which is discussed in your dialogue with Pirsig on Annotation #57 in LC) while avoiding the distractive debate about whether experience is *either* static *or* Dynamic. In the “context” of enlightenment, or the world of the buddhas, one can identify pure experience solely with Dynamic Quality but this identification, which excludes consideration of static patterns, defies further explanation and as such has limited intellectual value on its own, in my opinion. Dan quoted Paul: "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. Paul: What I’m doing is showing how the “building of analogues upon analogues” (which is the mythos) in ZMM is the same thing as the building of static patterns when carried over into the terms used in LILA. I think the quotes I offered support that conclusion. Hence, in context (1), the mythos and static (intellectual) quality are identical. I therefore don’t see how you arrive at the conclusion that SOM and the mythos are identical unless you think that SOM and static (intellectual) quality are identical, which I’m sure you don’t. However, I do agree with your observation insofar as the distinction between subject and object exists within the static mythos, even as reconstructed by the MOQ. This distinction is very valuable, if it wasn’t it would never have been made and wouldn’t now be assumed to exist by so many people. Dan said: 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. Paul: It’s not clear if you mean pre-existence as “prior to experience” or as “prior to humans.” If the former, I’ve addressed that above. If the latter, then, first of all I agree, this “remembering” that we must do is the value of context (1). But further to that, the point of context (1) is that our reality of distinguishable things consists of nothing but “good ideas”. By stating that there is no way to verify them I assume you mean there is no way to check if ideas correspond to something real and, if so, this is why I made the point about the MOQ’s opposition to correspondence epistemology wherein verification is achieved by the explanatory value of a given idea. Within context (2) these “good ideas” are taken as true because they have been arrived at through a succession of value judgements. There is no other basis for them to be true. Dan said: 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. Paul: As above, I don’t quite see how you arrive at that. I see that in ZMM Pirsig is exposing the roots of the modern Western mythos to show why it is so dominated by SOM but it was once dominated by gods and spirits (as is still the case in the mythos of other cultures in some parts of the planet) so there is no basis for considering the Western mythos as terminally frozen in its current form. Moreover, I’m suggesting that the MOQ provides the basis of a reconstructed mythos, not a means of escape from it. And to reiterate - this reconstructed mythos does contain subjects and objects but they become taxonomical instead of ontological or epistemological terms, simply referring to types (i.e. levels) of value, as you know. It’s as if you think one should move from the *appearance* of SOM to the *reality* of the MOQ, but this is just another spin of the Parmenidean wheel and is therefore self-defeating. I think this is very important to understand. I believe you already get that, Dan, but I’m curious about what you think the “MOQ proper” is. The phrase has a tinge of Bo Skutvik about it. I think that after reading LILA, which is written predominantly in context (2), many readers “forget” the context (1) perspective from ZMM. I think this comes through in a lot of the forum discussions on which LC is based. Pirsig addressed this in LC by often emphasising context (1) in his notes (with, I recall, some readers thinking he took an unexpected “idealist” turn). I see that you learned a lot from the exchanges with Pirsig as documented in LC, and so did I. However, I suggest you may have taken that learning to mean that what Pirsig presents in context (2) is somehow not real or less important and context (1) is that which is ultimately true - the “proper MOQ?”. My paper was an attempt to show that both contexts are true and real insofar as truth and reality are both defined as that which is of value. Best regards, Paul 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
