Hello everyone On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 8:58 AM, X Acto <[email protected]> wrote:
> Paul says to Dan: > > > > First off, my intention is never to insult or in any way disrespect you, > or > > anyone here. I apologise if I made you feel insulted. > > > > Dan Quotes ZMM: > "In class, the Professor of Philosophy, noting Phædrus' apparent good > behavior and diligence, has decided he may not be such a bad student after > all. This is a second mistake. He has decided to play a little game with > Phædrus by asking him what he thinks of cookery. Socrates has > demonstrated to Gorgias that both rhetoric and cooking are branches of > pandering...pimping...because they appeal to the emotions rather than true > knowledge. > "In response to the Professor's question, Phædrus gives Socrates' answer > that > cookery is a branch of pandering. > "There's a titter from one of the women in the class which displeases > Phædrus because he knows the Professor is trying for a dialectical hold on > him similar to the kind Socrates gets on his opponents, and his answer is > not > intended to be funny but simply to throw off the dialectical hold the > Professor is trying to get. Phædrus is quite ready to recite in detail the > exact > arguments Socrates uses to establish this view. > "But that isn't what the Professor wants. He wants to have a dialectical > discussion in class in which he, Phædrus, is the rhetorician and is thrown > by > the force of dialectic. The Professor frowns and tries again. ``No. I mean, > do you really think that a well-cooked meal served in the best of > restaurants > is really something that we should turn down?'' > "Phædrus asks, ``You mean my personal opinion?'' For months now, since > the innocent student disappeared, there have been no personal opinions > ventured in this class. > ``Yaaas,'' the Professor says. > "Phædrus is silent and tries to work out an answer. Everyone is waiting. > His > thoughts move up to lightning speed, winnowing through the dialectic, > playing one argumentative chess opening after another, seeing that each one > loses, and moving to the next one, faster and faster...but all the class > witnesses is silence. Finally, in embarrassment, the Professor drops the > question and begins the lecture. > "But Phædrus doesn't hear the lecture. His mind races on and on, through > the permutations of the dialectic, on and on, hitting things, finding new > branches and sub-branches, exploding with anger at each new discovery of > the viciousness and meanness and lowness of this `àrt'' called dialectic. > The > Professor, looking at his expression, becomes quite alarmed, and continues > the lecture in a kind of panic. Phædrus' mind races on and on and then on > further, seeing now at last a kind of evil thing, an evil deeply entrenched > in > himself, which pretends to try to understand love and beauty and truth and > wisdom but whose real purpose is never to understand them, whose real > purpose is always to usurp them and enthrone itself. Dialectic...the > usurper. > That is what he sees. The parvenu, muscling in on all that is Good and > seeking to contain it and control it. Evil. The Professor calls the lecture > to an > early end and leaves the room hurriedly." [ZMM] > > [Ron clarifies] > Often I see people quoting the character "Phaedrus" as if they were quoting > Bobs own explanation of the Metaphysics of Quality they can't seperate > the character or the story narrative from his philosophy. > This passage however has alot to say about the character and where > the character is at in his philosophic understanding at the time. > Dan: Who said anything about assuming a character in a novel is the actual author? I offered a quote to better illuminate why I felt insulted. > > Especially this part: > "Phædrus' mind races on and on and then on > further, seeing now at last a kind of evil thing, an evil deeply > entrenched in > [himself], which pretends to try to understand love and beauty and truth > and > wisdom but whose real purpose is never to understand them, whose real > purpose is always to usurp them and enthrone itself." > > This is worthy of examination philosophically, there is an evil in HIMSELF > which PRETENDS to try,,,,, to understand dynamic quality (truth, beauty, > love > wisdom) > > BUT...and here is the kicker, dialectic never tries to understand DQ. this > pisses > Phaedrus off. > > It's purpose is to deconstruct static unexamined assumptions about what we > think or "believe" we know about DQ, the undefineable good. > > The character Phaedrus discovers that he had been assuming dialectic was > supposed to reduce down to an absolute certainty a "truth" when in fact > dialectic arrived at truth by destroying any concept we have of it. He had > been mistaken to view it as a chess game with a clear winner, the actual > winner is the loser of the match. > > > > Dan comments: > I offer this rather long quote in an effort to explain how I felt when you > suggested I am saying that Robert Pirsig is "buttering up" the readers. I > think it is as insulting being told I am pandering to my readers by making > an effort to better my writings by offering them a firm grounding in the > background of my stories. You are basically saying by writing down to a > reader an artful author is pandering to them. I disagree. > > [Ron sez] > > Now an artful author ceratianly DOES pander to a reader the question is > for what aim. The art of persuasion is noble when its aims are noble. > Dan: Really! So you see Robert Pirsig as a pimp? You believe all the great artists are nothing but pimps and panderers? Motorcycle maintenance is just pandering to the machine? Wow. That explains a lot about you. > > Dan: > Interesting. By asking if the MOQ is of the highest quality then it would > appear (to me) that we are in effect asking whether there can be nothing > better than the MOQ. I am pretty sure that something better will one day > emerge. > > What I see you saying is that the MOQ begins with human experience. Well, > actually that is exactly what you say. Now, it may be that I am > misinterpreting your words but the MOQ is not so grandiose as to claim it > begins with experience. Yes, the MOQ is a collection of intellectual > quality patterns seeking to explain reality in a more expansive way than > does our current prevailing mythos. > > Rather, I would say intellectual quality patterns emerge from Dynamic > Quality. For me, it works better to think of experience and Dynamic Quality > as becoming synonymous. It appears this statement bothers you (among others > here) a bit though I have yet to discern why. > > [Ron sez] > It bothers me because it neglects biological and social value in the > explanation > of the immediate now of experience. It neglects the assertion that even > the immediate > now is colored by personal history and culture. Ie static quality. > Dan: No. All that comes later. That's why it is called pre-intellectual awareness. > > Paul: > > I know that a more conventional MOQ answer would be that Dynamic Quality > is > > reality and the MOQ is a static pattern so is not equivalent to reality > and > > I think that's a good enough answer in most cases but can't help feeling > it > > puts a little toe onto the Yellow Brick Road back to Athens.... > > > > Dan: > I hesitate to say Dynamic Quality "is" anything. We may say what 'it' is > not and we may use analogies and synonyms to intellectually illuminate what > we are on about when we say 'Dynamic Quality' but to say 'it' is reality, > or this, or that, is to fall further into a trap of naming the unnameable. > > [Ron] > Right, this important to realize, but it is just as important to realize > that any and all human > understanding is the only way we can perceive the immediate now. So it > would seem > that there is a distinction between the unnameable of the patternless and > the good of > the immediate now of human experience. Dan: No, I disagree. If we are going to use such terms as synonyms for Dynamic Quality it seems better not to intellectually divide them into different categories. That is what I am saying to Paul here. > I'd say, the Pragmatist would contend that > the former is more abstract and less meaningful than the latter as an idea. > Just as dialectic this abstraction seeks to usurp the good and enthrone > itself. > Simply on the merit that it refers to the outside of human experience, it > leaves > the term a hollow empty meaningless place holder in the human experience > and > really is not verifiable in this context of the immediate now. > > > Dan: > To state we experience static quality or we > experience Dynamic Quality is to misunderstand > the context in which the MOQ > is using the term. > > [Ron] > Then to say the MoQ is a form of Pragmatism is also > to misunderstand the context in which Robert Pirsig > is using the term. "DQ". according to you. > Dan: I am not sure I follow this line of thought. > > > > Dan: > > > Why bother with speaking about Dynamic Quality at all? We throw > > > intellectual terms at 'it' but that is all we may do. In creating > > synonyms > > > and analogies we might better delineate what we are on about even if it > > > cannot be described. > > > > > > Dan: > Why doesn't emergence of static patterns from experience work better within > the context of the MOQ? I understand there are many here who insist on > using qualifiers like 'direct' and 'pure' to describe experience but I > think it unnecessarily complicates an already complex metaphysics when we > begin breaking up 'experience' into all these different terms. > > [Ron] > Because it does not account for human meaning, its explanation neglects > the good > it does not answer the "why" or what for. > Dan: Static quality is human meaning. How does the emergence of static quality from Dynamic Quality not account for human meaning? > > Paul: > > If, as you say, experience is synonymous with Dynamic Quality and human > > experience is synonymous with experience, then human experience is > > synonymous with Dynamic Quality, no? > > Dan: > No. First, I didn't say it. Robert Pirsig said it. "Man is the measure of > all things." [ZMM] "Man is always the"measure of all things, even in > matters of space and dimension." [Lila] > > RMP Annotation 37 > > I don’t think they are fuzzy. > > DG: > > But they are human specific. > > RMP: > > Anders is slipping into the materialist assumption that there is a huge > world out there that has nothing to do with people. The MOQ says that is a > high quality assumption, within limits. One of its limits is that without > humans to make it that assumption cannot be made. It is a human specific > assumption. Strictly speaking, Anders has never heard of or ever will hear > of anything that isn’t human specific. [Lila's Child] > > Dan comments: > > It appears to me that the MOQ begins with experience and to postulate > non-human experience is a materialistic assumption which works within > limits. To add qualifiers like 'human' and 'non-human' to the term > 'experience' seems to complicate matters more than to simplify. > > [Ron] > By saying that DQ is value-less you ARE asserting a non-human experience. > That is the whole point. It is postulating a non-human, abstraction that > is not > veifiable in the now human experience. > Dan: Where did I say that? I am not sure we're discussing the same thing, Ron. > > .. > > > > ... > 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 > -- 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
