> 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. [Ron replies] Thanks. A good artist plays to an audience to get a message accross. And when we are talking about the art of rhetoric, the art of persuasion, there is a form of pandering employed in order to change opinions and deliver high quality ideas. You connect on a base level and play to base desire to capture an audience. Pirsig is indeed a pimp, he lured me in with motorcycle trips across the country, boat trips and drunken sex with strangers, then he laid philosophy on me. He wove it into the narrative and hooked me. > > > 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. [Ron] I guess what I am trying to refer to is the supposition that human experience is culturally derrived, the mythos. Projected onto all human experience, through layers of analogy. I take Pirsig to mean it is all an anolgy, even direct perception of the pre-intellectual "now" moment. Seeing a green sun or recognizing the color blue. The culture literally teaches how we see and percieve the "now" of pre-intellect. > > > > 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? [Ron] The immediate now is colored by human meaning, how could it be anything else? yet deemed as synonomous with DQ there seems to be a discrepancy in continuity of meaning in this explanation. If DQ is experience and SQ is human meaning, then experience is devoid of human meaning. > > 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. [Ron] I understand you as implying that when you state that static patterns are not experienced. If DQ is experience and SQ is human meaning, then experience is devoid of human meaning. ..or am I mistaken? Thnx. 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
