Hello everyone On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 9:05 AM, 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. > Hi Paul, You are most welcome. Thank you for your reply as well. I started to write to you privately as well but then I saw how you started your paper by referring to the discussion group. Perhaps others might get something out of this. Or not. > > 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: Yes this comment is more related to previous discussions I've had in moq.discuss as well as from the discussions about annotation 67 in Lila's Child. But it does pertain here as well, toward the end of this email... > > 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. > Dan: So context 2 is from within the context of the framework of the MOQ? If this is so, then how is it that such 'things' as inorganic and biological patterns, including gravity, predate human experience? Doesn't the MOQ begin with experience? > 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: What I see Robert Pirsig doing here is developing the context of the MOQ from the framework of the mythos, or the subject/object metaphysics prevalent in our culture. This sentence sets up your quote above: "Why, for example, should a group of simple, stable compounds of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen struggle for billions of years to organize themselves into a professor of chemistry?" The author is stating that the world exists for billions of years because it is a common sense notion. He is seeking agreement from readers who are used to thinking of the world as billions of years old. He cannot simply come out and say that the MOQ begins with experience without introducing a solid backing from the mythos was we know it. I guess he could but would anyone take it seriously? > > 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. Dan: I take it that you did say that when I read this portion of your paper: "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." Dan: If as you say earlier that context 2 is from within the framework of the MOQ (I leave the "static mythos" aside for the moment) then you are basically saying there are objects that exist independently and prior to experience, or human imagination. Within the framework of the MOQ the world is composed of static quality patterns emerging from Dynamic Quality, seen as synonymous with experience. Therefore to say these patterns exist prior to human imagination is going against the grain of the MOQ. Now, within the static mythos, if we can call it that, objects DO exist prior to and independently of experience. Gravity existed before Newton just waiting around for him to discover it. This is why I tend disagree with your usage of 'static' here. Paul: 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. Dan: Ah. Here we differ. Within the framework of the MOQ we cannot define experience by what it is, but by what it is not. These patterns emerging from Dynamic Quality are memories of experience, not experience itself. This "ongoing emergence of static patterns of value" refers to the process of definition which is continually occurring. It is perhaps good to remember that within the MOQ, ideas come before matter. > Paul: 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. Dan: If the MOQ states that Dynamic Quality is synonymous with experience then it is neither static or 'Dynamic' since these are both intellectual terms referring to that which is beyond definition. If on the other hand "experience is limited to the emergence of intellectual patterns which contain “every last bit” of the world" then context 1 seems to refer to an individual (subject) defining the world (object). > Paul: 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: This is one reason why it seems better to me to identify experience as being synonymous with Dynamic Quality rather than stating "pure experience" being identified with Dynamic Quality. Within the MOQ experience is prior to static quality patterns. There is no intellectual value here. > > 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. Dan: No, of course not. To me the mythos is composed of basic attitudes of people transmitted over time. We may not always be aware of where our beliefs arise but for the most part Western culture sees the world as composed of objects we experience as subjects. This assumption is so entrenched into the scientific method that when the quantum world began to show cracks in it, researchers called such results weird and spooky. What you seem to be saying is from context 1 we automatically make the jump from the prevalence of subject/object metaphysics to a metaphysics of value, or the MOQ. If this is so, then there seems to be no need for a book like Lila. > Paul: 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: I don't know that I would go so far. I think the MOQ expands upon and encapsulates subject/object metaphysics but if we begin to form an understanding with it, then it becomes clear that objects as such cannot exist independently and prior to experience. > > 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.” Dan: What difference does it make? > Paul: 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”. Dan: This seems too restrictive; so from context 1 we are purely dealing with idealism? > Paul: 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 Dan: Not exactly. If within the framework of the MOQ static quality patterns emerge from Dynamic Quality (seen as synonymous with experience) then the assumption these patterns exist prior to experience cannot be verified one way or the other. There is nothing at all we can say of them prior to experience. > Paul: 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: We assume these ideas correspond with reality but this is not the truth, yes. > > 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. Dan: "In most cases, with respect to going about daily life, it is most valuable to assume, as per context (2), that static patterns, and the things contained within them, are real (and follow the laws and rules appropriate to the level in which they reside). In fact, most people do so without any conscious assumptions needing to be made, as noted by the earlier excerpt describing the development of a baby's static awareness. On the other hand, if dealing with new data which shatter the current set of dominant intellectual patterns, e.g. when challenging the existence of a fundamental particle or assimilating a mystic experience, then context (1) may be more valuable." Dan: What I see you saying here is that the common sense notion of objects existing prior to and independently of subjective experience works well in most situations. I know you name them static patterns but from the gist of this paragraph it appears to me that you are using subject/object metaphysics even by cloaking your words. You also seem to be equating mystic experience with context 1 which is why I began my post by disputing this. Does this help answer your question? > Paul: 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. Dan: Well no. Nothing is terminally frozen, as quantum theory is gradually becoming more mainstream. Still, the MOQ is far from being incorporated into the mythos. Even among those here who have read Lila there is a great deal of misunderstanding. > Paul: 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. > Dan: Yes it is helpful in leading those who are unaware of the framework of the MOQ into a more expanded understanding of it by using the terms subject and object as reference points. > > Paul: 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. Dan: No, that is not what I think. Hopefully my reply here has helped to correct any misunderstandings in that context. > Paul: 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. > Dan: Ha! Yes good old Bodvar. But I do get your drift here. Is the term "framework" of the MOQ better? And really, do you expect me to delineate the MOQ here in any proper (:)) way? My choice of words is perhaps leaning more toward the poetic as I've been reading lots of poetry of late, mainly to help my fiction writing. It tends to bleed into this forum as well. > > Paul: 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). Dan: I would say parts of Lila are written from the perspective of the MOQ while parts are written from the perspective of the everyday world, or what I might call subject/object metaphysics. What you are saying is quite valuable, however, and I am sure I need more time to assimilate it. > Paul: I see that you learned a lot from the exchanges with Pirsig as > documented in LC, and so did I. Dan: Yes I did learn a lot from my work on Lila's Child. I see that you learned much as well. I appreciate that. > Paul: 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. > Dan: Again, it is a poor choice of wording on my part perhaps. It might be better put that there is the MOQ and there is that which is taken to be the MOQ. No? > > Best regards, > And to you, Dan http://www.danglover.com 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
