Hi All DMB says; Pirsig emphasizes the role of DQ, as the source and substance of everything, as the generator of all static patterns, SOM thinks that truth is only true when it's free of values. That's the problem, not coherence or elegance, consistency or evidence.
I see SOM as subordinate to MOQ. To me SOM is just a Methodological attidude and in this sense, from a MOQ perspective, a social value. This social value, being practiced by priests in the church of reason, is an attitude that transforms the human mind into a measurement device. This attitude is there for the purpose to decrease all personal social value's like intrests in gaining a doctorate degree or a nobel price or other forms of recognition. This attitude is there for the purpose that your personal intrests in these social values can delute the outcome of your measurements. History proves that this attitude has been a successfull attitude to increase the body of scientific knowledge. So this attitude works best within the social boundries of the church of reason. In western civilisations is the church of reason generally accepted as the bringer of truth. Does this prove that SOM as the social values in the church of reason are to be accepted as the best possible social values in general? The work of Pirsig claims NOT for reasons we all know. Pirsig claims that MOQ can bee seen as a more General methaphysical point of view and incorporates the fruits gained through the SOM attitude as it's highest static Moral values. Does this mean that MOQ is also the best point of view for the priests in the church of reason? Kind regards Eddo 2013/8/15 david buchanan <[email protected]> > Arlo said to Ian: > I didn't think you made a point that warranted addressing, apart from > accusations of "SOMist intellectual perspective" that you hadn't defined. > But, okay, let's see what kind of 'addressing' I can give this. > > > > Ian replied: > "In order to free oneself from the choking dogma of intellectual patterns > .... one does have to recognise that the dogma of what counts as coherent - > valid argumentation - is itself such an intellectual pattern." > > > Arlo said back: > What is it you'd like me to address? You restated my evaluation of your > posts to express what you think better states your position. Okay. First, > I'd say you remain 'stuck' in viewing intellectual qualities like coherence > and precision as 'dogma' or 'SOMist', and you seem to equate "valid > argumentation" as something that 'restricts' intellectual quality. Given > this, I am not sure what you THINK would evidence high quality intellectual > patterns, but I would still evaluate your position as stuck in > "intellect=SOM". This is why I jumped to your other point. Since you equate > 'coherence' and (now) 'valid argumentation' as SOMist (and over several > recent emails, as I pointed out), rather than as exemplars of high quality > intellectual patterns, I asked what you consider to be 'non-SOMist' > intellectual patterns. In other words, by regressing "dogma" back to even > include a concept like "coherence", you're moving into the same sort of > vacuous nihilism that the MOQ argues against. And I guess this hinges on > this question. "Coherence" is an intellectual pattern, but is it an "SOMist > intellectual pattern"? If so, are you suggesting we redefine 'coherence', > and how? Or, are you suggesting that incoherent intellectual patterns are > what the MOQ offers to counter "SOMist intellect"? Or...? > > > > > dmb says: > A very crucial and persistent mistake is on full display here. The disease > is equated with the cure once again. People like Ian and Marsha keep > dismissing the arguments and evidence against it because they confuse > things like coherence and valid argumentation with the disease instead of > the cure. > > I guess everyone agrees that SOM is the disease but Ian and Marsha don't > seem to understand where this problem ends and the MOQ's intellect begins. > This vicious circle treats the MOQ as if it were an enemy of the MOQ. As > they see it, static intellectual patterns of value are not a species of the > Good. Any kind of intellectual value is a choking dogma, according to these > guys. So intellect itself becomes their enemy, not SOM as such. > > The evidence against this view is pretty straight forward and I've posted > lots of it many times. This is what our anti-intellectualists have been > evading for a very long time. To add even more impediments to the > possibility of progress, growth or learning, the arguments and evidence are > always dismissed as a personal attacks, as mere rhetoric, as mere opinion, > as a baseless accusation. These are pretty lame excuses for failing to deal > with the substance of the matter. As a result, the criticism just never > gets addressed in any reasonable way. That's why this goes on year after > year. > > > This is a philosophical discussion group. We're talking about a philosophy > (MOQ) that says logical consistency is one of the tests of truth and Pirsig > claims that the MOQ meets these tests. How can anyone dismiss the value of > logical consistency in such a context? Logically inconsistent ideas are > incoherent ideas precisely because they fall apart like a rickety old shack > that was hastily hammered together from ill-fitting parts. How could > contradiction or inconsistency ever be considered a good thing in such a > context? It simply defies reason and all of the textual evidence. It also > defies the English language. > > coherent |kōˈhi(ə)rənt|adjective1 (of an argument, theory, or policy) > logical and consistent : they failed to develop a coherent economic > strategy.• (of a person) able to speak clearly and logically : she was > lucid and coherent and did not appear to be injured.2 united as or forming > a whole : divided into a number of geographically coherent kingdoms. > > "Coherence" is a good word to use when talking about the MOQ and > especially the MOQ's levels of static quality. Pirsig points out (in LILA) > that even a chair or a glass of water is a little moral order because of > the way it coheres or holds together. The word comes from Latin cohaerent > and literally means ‘sticking together’. But, as Pirsig also points out, > the values that hold a glass of water together are very different from the > values that hold a nation together. (Inorganic patterns are very different > from social patterns.) This goes for intellect as well. The coherence of an > idea is what keeps it from falling apart - as an idea. An incoherent > thought or position is like a broken, leaky glass, like a sick or dying > animal, or like a crumbling nation. > "The tests of truth are logical consistency, agreement with experience, > and economy of explanation. The Metaphysics of Quality satisfies these." > (Pirsig in Lila, chapter 8.) > > "A metaphysics must be divisible, definable and knowable, or there isn't > any metaphysics." (Pirsig in Lila, page 64.) > > "Definitions are the FOUNDATION of reason. You can't reason without them." > (Emphasis is Pirsig's. ZAMM, page 214.) > > "James said, 'Truth is one species of good, and not, as is usually > supposed, a category distinct from good, and coordinate with it'. He said, > 'The true is the name of whatever proves itself to be good in the way of > belief.' TRUTH IS A SPECIES OF GOOD. That was EXACTLY what is meant by the > MOQ. Truth is a static intellectual pattern WITHIN a larger entity called > Quality."" (Emphasis is Pirsig's. Lila, chapter 29.) > > Before the end of this chapter, just a page or two later, Pirsig goes on > to explain what this truth theory means within the larger structure of the > MOQ. > > "In the past empiricists have tried to keep science free from values. > [That is SOM = value-free science or objectivity.] Values have been > considered a pollution of the rational scientific process. But the MOQ > makes it clear that the pollution is from threats to science by static > lower levels of evolution: static biological values such as the biological > fear that threatened Jenner's small pox experiment; static social values > such as the religious censorship that threatened Galileo with the rack. The > MOQ says that science's empirical rejection of biological and social values > is not only rationally correct, it is also morally correct because the > intellectual patterns of science are of a higher evolutionary order than > the old biological and social patterns. But the MOQ also says that DQ - the > value-force that chooses an elegant mathematical solution to a laborious > one, or a brilliant experiment over a confusing, inconclusive one - is > another matter altogether. DQ is a higher moral order than static > scientific truth, and it is as immoral for philosophers of science to try > to suppress DQ as it is for church authorities to suppress scientific > method. Dynamic value is an integral part of science. It is the cutting > edge of scientific progress itself. ... Through this identification of pure > value with pure experience, the MOQ paves the way for an enlarged way of > looking at experience which can resolve all sorts of anomalies that > traditional empiricism has not been able to cope with." > > I think it's quite clear that there are all kinds of ways to describe > intellectual quality WITHOUT getting it mixed up with SOM. Even while he is > rejecting SOM for an expanded and improved form of rationality, an artful > rationality, Pirsig is still listing the basic criteria by which > intellectual quality is evaluated. This includes things like elegance and > not sloppiness, precision and not vagueness, clarity and not confusion, > definable terms and not made up or arbitrary meanings, logical consistency > and not incoherence or inconsistency, economy of explanation and not > verbose, rambling drivel, and one of my favorites that could be discussed > at great length, agreement with experience. This is another way of saying > that high quality ideas are supported by empirical evidence, that all of > our knowledge and all our truths are derived from experience. And that is > another way of saying that intellectual quality exists within a larger > entity called Quality, which is a fine way to say that good ideas are the > ones that serve the ongoing process of life and evolution. Morality is not > served by simply rejecting intellectual values as dogmatic and oppressive > but by the recognition of DQ as "the value-force that chooses an elegant > mathematical solution to a laborious one, or a brilliant experiment over a > confusing, inconclusive one". > > > In other words, DQ is the value-force that chooses coherent idea over > incoherent ideas, that chooses logical consistence over contradictions or > confused notions. It's what guides the selection of beautiful ideas over > clumsy and clunky notions. SOM is nothing like this. In the MOQ, intellect > is not polluted by values but rather IS a certain kind of value, a species > of the good. In the MOQ, intellect is centered around DQ and subordinate to > DQ but SOM totally fails to acknowledge the value of values in our ways of > thinking. Where Pirsig emphasizes the role of DQ, as the source and > substance of everything, as the generator of all static patterns, SOM > thinks that truth is only true when it's free of values. That's the > problem, not coherence or elegance, consistency or evidence. > > > In order to stop treating the cure as if it were the disease, Ian and > Marsha have to first understand the difference between SOM and the MOQ. > Obviously, they don't see the difference. Anti-intellectualism is an > inevitable result of this confusion. What's worse, of course, is that it > totally misconstrues and undermines the whole point and purpose of the MOQ. > This confused anti-intellectualism is effectively a form of anti-MOQism. > > Well, if stuckness is an opportunity for growth then these guys must have > one heck of an opportunity because I've never seen such stuckness. This > same mistake has been repeated too many times in too many ways to count > even though it makes no sense and there is a ton of evidence against it. > They are as stuck and dogmatic as any fanatic or fundamentalist ever was. > It's desperately tenacious, rigid as a corpse, and deaf and dumb as a bag > of rocks. > > > > > > > > > > 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
