> [Arlo said at the end of the last post] > Now, really, I am done with this. I don't know whether or not I'm doing > Paul's intention any justice, but I have no interest in having a third-party > argument. As I said, I think reducing Paul's contexts to "Dynamic/East" and > "static/West" is a very incorrect move. But you are clinging to this no > matter what I say, so its obvious I can't convince you of this. So, let's > bring this to an end.
[djh] I put this comment of yours at the start because I think it's obviously crucial to whether we even continue our discussion at all... Call me crazy Arlo but I actually enjoy philosophical discussion - including disagreement! Isn't the whole point to this forum discussing and working through this exact disagreement that we are having now? I'm happy to be wrong - so long as you can show me something better and I'd hope you'd have the same attitude. If we both approach this discussion with an open attitude like the one you have shown me in the past, then I actually think we can work through any difference in perspective that we have and find harmony where there previously was none. This stuff requires patience, and yes it can be extremely frustrating(no exaggeration) - no one is going to drop all their values in an instant. But if I see something as valuable then I'm naturally not going to drop it so easily and I'd expect the same from you too.. That's how static quality works! I liked Pirsigs words at the start of Lila's Child on this very subject: "I’ve concluded that the biggest improvement I could make in the MOQ would be to block the notion that the MOQ claims to be a quick fix for every moral problem in the universe. I have never seen it that way. The image in my mind as I wrote it was of a large football field that gave meaning to the game by telling you who was on the 20-yard line but did not decide which team would win. That was the point of the two opposing arguments over the death penalty described in Lila. That was the point of the equilibrium between static and Dynamic Quality. Both are moral arguments. Both can claim the MOQ for support. Just as two sides can go before the U.S. Supreme Court and both claim constitutionality, so two sides can use the MOQ, but that does not mean that either the Constitution or the MOQ is a meaningless set of ideas. Our whole judicial system rests on the presumption that more than one set of conclusions about individual cases can be drawn within a given set of moral rules. The MOQ makes the same presumption." The most tragic thing about your frustration to me is that I don't think we really disagree very much at all.. I agree with you where you write - "I've never had a problem understanding this[two contexts], but if this helps people who are struggling, I guess that's fine." But more than just 'help folks who are struggling' what the two contexts do provide us with is an easy reference with which we can discuss the fundamentally different perspectives/assumptions/values with which folks approach things. > [DJH] > At the most fundamental level there is an apparent contradiction within the > MOQ... > > [Arlo] > I do not see this a 'contradiction' (apparent or otherwise) within the MOQ. > How I read Paul's ideas, is that Pirsig uses two voices over two books, one > epistemological and one ontological. I've never had a problem understanding > this, but if this helps people who are struggling, I guess that's fine. By > the way, most philosophers move through 'periods' in their writing, this is > normal. [djh] It is an apparent contradiction if one doesn't understand the two contexts and their epistemological and ontological connotations. As Paul writes: "The [first context of the] MOQ says that 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! " > [Arlo] > "Context 1" is simply Quality precedes subjects and objects. It is not "East" > and it is not "Dynamic" > > [DJH] > Except as RMP has said the Quality of ZMM is the Dynamic Quality of Lila. > Dynamic Quality precedes subjects and objects. > > [Arlo] > By calling context one "Dynamic" and context two "static", your confusing the > terms and drawing a distinction that does not exist. Both context one and > context two involve Dynamic and static quality, and their relation to each > other. They differ, as Paul suggests, not in one being Dynamic and one being > static, but in one being epistemological and one being ontological. [djh] Here's possibly a great source of the confusion - I'm not calling one context 'Dynamic' and the other context 'static'. Both contexts are static quality and intellectually describe the epistemological and ontological basis of the MOQ. What I'm saying is that from context one - the thing which is most valuable is Dynamic Quality and from context two - static quality. Paul pretty much says the same thing himself.. "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." "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. " Can't you see this? I'm not really saying anything very revelatory at all.. Your resistance confuses me. > [DJH] > Dynamic Quality is traditionally the quality of the East... > > [Arlo] > Sigh. No, David, Dynamic Quality is not the quality of the East. Pirsig > recognizes that many Eastern cultures, and much Native American culture, are > not strongly rooted in a subject-object orientation, and many are more > informed by 'religious mysticism' than 'scientific positivism'. But > non-SOM/SOM does not translate to Dynamic/static. To make this leap is to > misunderstand BOTH binaries. > > Dynamic Quality and static quality describes the evolutionary force that > drives both (ALL!) cultures. SOM and non-SOM is used to describe the effects > on that evolution when 'objects' or 'subjects' are considered to be primary > to experience. [djh] I'm near a copy of a book now.. "When Phaedrus first went to India he'd wondered why, if this passage of enlightenment into pure Dynamic Quality was such a universal reality, did it only occur in certain parts of the world and not others? At the time he'd thought this was proof that the whole thing was just Oriental religious baloney, the equivalent of a magic land called 'heaven' that Westerners go to if they are good and get a ticket from the priests. Now he saw that enlightenment is distributed in all parts of the world just as the color yellow is distributed in all parts of the world, but some cultures accept it and others screen out recognition of it." I don't see any mention of SOM/non-SOM here? We can agree that Paul's contexts are not about SOM. LILA is not much about SOM either.. "Crucially, and in contrast to idealism, the MOQ adds that the properties contained within human knowledge emerge and change in relation to ongoing Dynamic Quality and the value judgements it guides within the context of existing patterns as opposed to being the product of some form of fundamental, independent mind (such as the Platonic Forms or a theistic God)." > [DJH] > we start with dynamic quality (context 1) then we go on to context 2 - static > quality > > [Arlo] > No. No. No. > > We start with an epistemological position, that Dynamic Quality precedes > static quality, and then we move into an ontological position where- keeping > our epistemological position salient- Dynamic Quality generates an > evolutionary wake of static quality, we thus we are able to generate > "pragmatic high quality explanations of how the world operates in accordance > with the assumption that values are the ubiquitous, empirical element of an > evolving universe". > > In both 'contexts', Dynamic and static quality are present, and in both a > statement of relation is made. Not a relation of primacy. Not a relation of > prevalence. Not a relation of 'culture'. A relation of VALUE. [djh] Right! Couldn't agree more. What, in each context, is most valuable? In context 1 - Dynamic Quality is most valuable. In context 2 - static quality is most valuable. > [Arlo] > I understand that in his paper Paul refers to context 2 as the 'static > mythos', but I'd disagree here. Context two is not the static mythos. It is > the value-relation between the 'static mythos' and the that which 'causes us > to create the world in which we live' (to follow his use of ZMM lingo). Both > 'contexts' are intellectual patterns expressing a relationship between the > two aspects of Pirsig's primary metaphysical division. [djh] And that 'relationship' (to use your lingo) is really just another word for value. What is most valuable in each context? That's why I harp on. 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
