> [Arlo previously] > Rather, we get people who have latched onto this rather literally and are > using it to justify two 'competing' views rather than understanding their > symbiotic and synthetic co-occurence as, I think, both Pirsig and Northrop > would've hoped. > > [djh previously] > Do you honestly think Marsha prefers two 'competing' views? I don't think so. > > > [Arlo] > I was talking about YOU, David. I've never once seen Marsha say she was in > 'context one', but I see YOU say it all the time. You've latched onto Paul's > idea, revised it into something like a "dynamic/East context" and a > "static/West context" (which is wrong), and you use it to compartmentalize > people incorrectly.
[djh] The Dynamic/East context is the same as context 1. "Although restated in parts of LILA prior to Chapter 11, context (1) is mainly described in ZMM culminating with Phaedrus's declaration, towards the end of his classes with the Chairman, that “[Dynamic] Quality is the generator of everything we know." " - Paul Turner E.g. Dynamic Quality is what this epistemological context is interested in. This is the conclusion of ZMM. The static/West context is the same as context 2. "Context (2) is the articulation of a particular intellectual static pattern - the “plain of understanding” - of the MOQ. In this second, more ontological context we see a transition from the way that Dynamic Quality produces all intellectual value judgments to the explanations that are the product of those value judgments. " - Paul Turner E.g. It ontologically says that static quality(value judgements) exists. This is the conclusion of LILA. Furthermore, both views, because they're different *can* be in conflict. As I've said many times before - it was this conflict which led RMP to create the static quality/Dynamic Quality distinction to begin with! "But the fact that Quality was the best way of uniting the two was no guarantee that the reverse was true - that the classic-romantic split was the best way of dividing Quality. It wasn't… The division he finally settled on was one he didn't really choose in any deliberative way. It was more as if it chose him… As Phaedrus thought about this context again and again it became apparent there were two kinds of good and evil involved. The tribal frame of values that condemned the Brujo and led to his punishment was one kind of good, for which Phasdrus coined the term 'static good.' Each culture has its own pattern of static good derived from fixed laws and the traditions and values that underlie them. This pattern of static good is the essential structure of the culture itself and defines it. In the static sense the brujo was very clearly evil to oppose the appointed authorities of his tribe. Suppose everyone did that? The whole Zuni culture, after thousands of years of continuous survival, would collapse into chaos. But in addition there's a Dynamic good that is outside of any culture, that cannot be contained by any system of precepts, but has to be continually rediscovered as a culture evolves. Good and evil are not entirely a matter of tribal custom. If they were, no tribal change would be possible, since custom cannot change custom. There has to be another source of good and evil outside the tribal customs that produces the tribal change." > [Arlo] > In fact, all you're really doing is replicating the 'romantic/classic' > distinction of ZMM and saying the are both legitimate ways to understand > Quality, rather than seeing the synthesis that Pirsig (and Northrop) crafted. > > There are not "two contexts", there is one "context" illuminated by these two > symbiotic ways of understanding together. [djh] How do they work together Arlo? They work together by being different. There is no 'overall' context, no one can simultaneously think that Dynamic Quality is the source of all things and thus reject that things exist before we think about them, then make this very assumption which they're rejecting at exactly the same time. This is clearly a contradiction. So they *are* both legitimate ways to understanding Quality. The two contexts work together and are in symbiosis by being different! If this wasn't the case then statements of RMP which Paul quotes and puts into context in his paper would be redundant because we could hold both views at the same time. As can be seen below this isn't the case and such quotes are valuable.. "The [first context of the] MOQ says that (Dynamic) Quality comes first, which produces ideas, which produce what we know as matter. The scientific community that has produced Complementarity almost invariably presumes that matter comes first and produces ideas. However, as if to further the confusion, the [second context of the] MOQ says that the idea that matter comes first is a high quality idea! " 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
