Welcome back Paul Ian
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 4:05 PM, Paul Turner <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 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
