Dan's dialogue with Paul Turner. Quote-out of context.
"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? ------------------------------------------------- (Adrie) Only to make a suggestion, Dan,maybe its better to think it as an initial proposed model, and by consequence a model derived from it, after conceptualisation. It is only what we understand from it that is maintained in our thinking. Allow me to say how i like to understand Mr Turners document.(in a shortcutconclusion) What Paul is doing is to "unfold" the hidden variables in the presented models, he is not nesting them within other models, or rederecting them. What we did until now , in the previous conversations, is to "unfold" the hidden variables in other people's mails.Unfolding flaws in presented toughts,unfolding wrong aspects of reality, like connotations and denotations. I have the same feeling about needing more time to assimilate what Paul is presenting,and that is mainly for the consequences wich come along with it. I have to study all possible implications and this will take me months. And i do read all your conversations Dan. Kind regards, Adrie 2013/6/13 Dan Glover <[email protected]> > 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 > -- parser 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
