Antwoord Arlo, David B [Adrie] breathtaking to read in your last two postings,etc,
[Arlo] Well, maybe, I think I have some disagreement with Paul, or it maybe a wording issue. I'm trying to keep separate "what Paul said" (which is a third party move, and all I can do is offer quotes) and what I think of the "two contexts" argument. Mostly, I think I agree with Paul, but am rather saddened by how this paper has been used, either with Ian's statement that context two is "narrow SOM", or David's insistence that these contexts are "Dynamic/east" and "static/west" (although he retracted a bit on the DQ/SQ overlay, apart from 'priority'). I think the biggest source of my frustration is that Pirsig's ideas form a coherent whole, that these views, or voices, reflecting epistemological and ontological (which is Paul's distinction, and one I support) positions, and do not represent two 'separate but valid interpretations' of the MOQ, but that when they are "combined as phases" form a coherent whole that "enacts a major expansion and evolution of the modern Western mythos". ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi , Arlo, sorry for the late response,but i'm preparing to travel to Turkey after the weekend, will be gone for two or three weeks. Also my daughter will get married there next week,and since i bought a house for her here, i have to do a lot of work to bring the house in mint condition. Anyway, the content and quality of your contributions is becoming very important to keep it in my mind;I have to cherish these pearls. Nice to have content like that in my toughts when 'm placing tiles. Turners document .., is recognising the transitional phases as valid, naming them, labeling them;,Paul is not creating a new junction but adds the correct dimension,(epi/onto)as a clarification to the sign on the junction. Off course we need all overlapping fields and forms of hybridisation that come along and (belong) with the reasoning,and surely Mr turners presentation is maintaining the whole in every and any detail and ,to say the least,gives evidence of nuances and detailling that was overlooked. To give an example about hybridisation Simply take radical empiricism/pragmatism,perfect blend to work with,however it is not always very clear when pragmatism is the locomotiv in a line of reasoning or empiricism takes the lead to pull,all transitional phases keep the train together. One of your statements kept my toughts moving...more precise a phrase ," the two contexts argument" I do not see it as an 'argument' because Paul does not deviate in any way from the cores produced in the models. If the arguments are there to clarify on fields of overlap, to rename them as valid and essential to form and formulate the whole,then Paul was very succesfull to make clear what is important, the whole,and every bit of it. Nobody has to agree on the paper, but the least one can do , is to take it serious, to understand it and to comprehend it, but some listers here on the forum have no intention what so ever to re-read zam or Lila in the Perspective Paul is proposing,they should!Its a very bright one. ------------------------------------------------------------------ DMB chimes in the conversation. If I understand what Paul is saying about the second "context," those who hold the bogus view are basically just rejecting the ontological structure of the MOQ. They don't just put DQ at the center of this static structure, they misconstrue its centrality to oppose the static structure. But, as Pirsig says repeatedly, in both ZAMM and LILA, both are absolutely necessary. “Static quality patterns are dead when they are exclusive, when they demand blind obedience and suppress Dynamic change. But static patterns, nevertheless, provide a necessary stabilizing force to protect Dynamic progress from degeneration. Although Dynamic Quality, the Quality of freedom, creates this world in which we live, these patterns of quality, the quality of order, preserve our world. Neither static nor Dynamic Quality can survive without the other.” (LILA, p.121) ------------------------------------------------------------------- (Adrie) Thanks David. precisely,!The ontological structure contains all transitional phases, the zones of overlap, the blend to make the cores work, it is never possible to leave premises simply behind, they move along ;one only can have the waves if you accept the ocean....... To stay in the metaphor,...shitexplanations like carrots all the way down, the whole enchilada,turtles all the way down,etc.....(the list is endless)are to be regarded as freak waves,generated by freaks, serving freaks only. To go back to your post-- It's easy to see that some thinkers might prefer to emphasize the creative and subversive aspects (DQ) of the MOQ while others might prefer to emphasize the stabilizing and unifying aspects (static quality). But both sides risk distortion. The first group risks an incoherent relativism and the second group risks a world too tightly woven or too rigidly fixed. The first one is too dynamic and the second one is too static. The way to strike a good balance between these two tendencies is to see that life is a continuous process of adjustment and adaptation wherein the static and the Dynamic work together in an ongoing relationship. Creativity is not simply a matter of rejecting static patterns or our structured reality but rather eliminating sticky old ideas in favor of better ideas. That's how you get growth and change rather than destruction, degeneracy or chaos. Nice how you write this David,the balance is in all the shades, not in the polarisation.'Distortion' nobody is completely free of some distortion of a kind,but to post them on a forum is not a good idea. aside for Arlo,thanks for the locations Arlo, i will investigate them all,talking about the milky way,...here in Belgium i can see it in Vielsalm at night , very bright and clear, and in Turkey sometimes i go to 'Uludag'(Bursa, very high)and it is so bright there at night that one feels part of the galaxy. when i was reading your post , i'v missed my bike(had a superhawk) Have to go guys , need to pack for Turkey,(hatay), back in three weeks Don't surf the freak waves , David, Arlo greetzz, Adrie 2013/8/9 Ian Glendinning <[email protected]> > Just to be absolutely clear: > > I don't say Context 2 is narrow SOM. > I say some people take a too narrow SOM view of Context 2. > > As usual, we're actually agreeing. > Ian > On 8 Aug 2013 20:55, "david buchanan" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Arlo said to Adrie: > > > > ...Mostly, I think I agree with Paul, but am rather saddened by how this > > paper has been used, either with Ian's statement that context two is > > "narrow SOM", or David's insistence that these contexts are > "Dynamic/east" > > and "static/west". I think the biggest source of my frustration is that > > Pirsig's ideas form a coherent whole, that these views, or voices, > > reflecting epistemological and ontological (which is Paul's distinction, > > and one I support) positions, and do not represent two 'separate but > valid > > interpretations' of the MOQ, but that when they are "combined as phases" > > form a coherent whole that "enacts a major expansion and evolution of the > > modern Western mythos". > > > > > > > > dmb says: > > > > Exactly. Instead of understanding the MOQ's central distinction WITHIN a > > unified and coherent picture, it is misconstrued in various ways to > produce > > two opposed interpretations. Instead of trying to strike a balance > between > > the static and the Dynamic, there is this bogus battle wherein static > > quality is denigrated in favor of pure flux. According to this bogus > view, > > static values, especially intellectual values, are regarded as an > > impediment to be killed, as a prison to be destroyed and as an illusion > to > > eliminated. > > > > If I understand what Paul is saying about the second "context," those who > > hold the bogus view are basically just rejecting the ontological > structure > > of the MOQ. They don't just put DQ at the center of this static > structure, > > they misconstrue its centrality to oppose the static structure. But, as > > Pirsig says repeatedly, in both ZAMM and LILA, both are absolutely > > necessary. > > > > “Static quality patterns are dead when they are exclusive, when they > > demand blind obedience and suppress Dynamic change. But static patterns, > > nevertheless, provide a necessary stabilizing force to protect Dynamic > > progress from degeneration. Although Dynamic Quality, the Quality of > > freedom, creates this world in which we live, these patterns of quality, > > the quality of order, preserve our world. Neither static nor Dynamic > > Quality can survive without the other.” (LILA, p.121) > > > > To say, as Pirsig does, that "truth is a static intellectual pattern > > within a larger entity called Quality," is a simple and elegant way to > say > > that truths exists in a relation to DQ. More specifically, it's a clean > and > > neat way to say that intellectual truths are subordinate to DQ. This > second > > context, this static structure, already has DQ built right into it. These > > are not two separate interpretations or two separate ways of looking at > the > > MOQ. Static and Dynamic are the central terms. They represent the first > and > > most important distinction of the MOQ. It's a hell of thing to get wrong > > being many further mistakes will inevitably follow from such a blunder. > > It's not exactly trivial or nit-picky, you know? These two elements are > > suppose to work together in a coherent picture. > > > > Contrary to Marsha's anti-intellectualist readings, Pirsig explains what > > it means to "kill" static intellectual patterns just a few pages later... > > > > "Zen monks' daily life is nothing but on ritual after another. Hour after > > hour, day after day, all his life. They don't tell him to shatter those > > static patterns to discover the unwritten Dharma, they want him to get > > those patterns perfect. The explanation for this contradiction is the > > belief that you do not free yourself from static patterns by fighting > them > > with other contrary static patterns. That is sometimes called 'bad karma > > chasing its tail.' You free yourself from static patterns by putting them > > to sleep. That is, you MASTER them with such proficiency that they become > > an unconscious part of your nature. You get so used to them you > completely > > forget them and they are gone. There in the center of the most monotonous > > boredom of static ritualistic patterns the Dynamic freedom is found." > > > > > > And he was saying the same thing about structure and freedom back in ZAMM > > too. It's the key to his central metaphor - motorcycle maintenance - and > to > > any other kind of fixing. Intellectual static patterns are NOT the enemy > of > > creativity. Quite the opposite. They're not enough all by themselves but > > they are necessary. > > > > > > "If you want to build a factory [or an argument], or fix a motorcycle, or > > set a nation right without getting stuck, then classical, structured, > > dualistic subject-object knowledge, although necessary, isn’t enough. You > > have to have some feeling for the quality of the work. You have to have a > > sense of what’s good. That is what carries you forward. This sense isn’t > > just something you’re born with, although you are born with it. It’s also > > something you can develop. It’s not just ‘intuition,’ not just > > unexplainable ‘skill’ or ‘talent.’ It’s the direct result of contact with > > basic reality, Quality, which dualistic reason has in the past tended to > > conceal.” ZAMM 284 > > > > > > "In the past Phaedrus' own radical bias caused him to think of Dynamic > > Quality alone and neglect static patterns of quality. Until now he had > > always felt that these static patterns were dead. They have no love. They > > offer no promise of anything. To succumb to them is to succumb to death, > > since that which does not change cannot live. But now he was beginning to > > see that this radical bias weakened his own case. Life can't exist on > > Dynamic Quality alone. It has no staying power. To cling to Dynamic > Quality > > alone apart from any static patterns is to cling to chaos." > > > > It's easy to see that some thinkers might prefer to emphasize the > creative > > and subversive aspects (DQ) of the MOQ while others might prefer to > > emphasize the stabilizing and unifying aspects (static quality). But both > > sides risk distortion. The first group risks an incoherent relativism and > > the second group risks a world too tightly woven or too rigidly fixed. > The > > first one is too dynamic and the second one is too static. The way to > > strike a good balance between these two tendencies is to see that life > is a > > continuous process of adjustment and adaptation wherein the static and > the > > Dynamic work together in an ongoing relationship. Creativity is not > simply > > a matter of rejecting static patterns or our structured reality but > rather > > eliminating sticky old ideas in favor of better ideas. That's how you get > > growth and change rather than destruction, degeneracy or chaos. > > > > > > "Value is the predecessor of structure. It’s the preintellectual > awareness > > that gives rise to it. Our structured reality is preselected on the basis > > of value, and really to understand structured reality requires an > > understanding of the value source from which it’s derived. One’s rational > > understanding of a motorcycle is therefore modified from minute to minute > > as one works on it and sees that a new and different rational > understanding > > has more Quality. One doesn’t cling to old sticky ideas because one has > an > > immediate rational basis for rejecting them. Reality isn’t static > anymore. > > It’s not a set of ideas you have to either fight or resign yourself to. > > It’s made up, in part, of ideas that are expected to grow as you grow, > and > > as we all grow, century after century. With Quality as a central > undefined > > term, reality is, in its essential nature, not static but dynamic. And > when > > you really understand dynamic reality you never get stuck. It has forms > but > > the forms are capable of change." > > > > > > > > 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 > > > 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
