Hi all > dmb says: > 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 after > rejecting SOM for an expanded and improved form of rationality, an artful > rationality, Pirsig still lists 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. > > > "The tests of truth are logical consistency, agreement with experience, and > economy of explanation. The Metaphysics of Quality satisfies these." (Lila, > chapter 8.) > > > "A metaphysics must be divisible, definable and knowable, or there isn't any > metaphysics." (Lila, page 64.) > > > "Definitions are the FOUNDATION of reason. You can't reason without them." > (ZAMM, page 214.) > > > " ...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... Dynamic value is an integral part of > science. It is the cutting edge of scientific progress itself. ..." (Lila, > chapter 29.) > > > In other words, DQ is the value-force that chooses coherent ideas over > incoherent ideas, that chooses logical consistency over contradiction. It's > what guides the selection of beautiful ideas over clumsy and clunky notions. > SOM is nothing like this. According to SOM, good and true ideas are the ones > that correspond to the one and only objective reality and our values are > considered a form of pollution. Science is supposed to value-free. In the > MOQ, intellect is not polluted by values but rather intellect 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. That's the defect, the disease. > 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. Coherence, elegance, > consistency and relevant evidence is not the problem. Those are just a few of > the names we give, that Pirsig gives, to certain kinds of intellectual > excellence. > > > "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."
This was one of the best contributions I've read here for a while. David points quite clearly on what the MD should handle. Namely, How. Elegance, goodness, betterness. Understanding these Values behind Subjects and Objects is the main issue here. Reading RMP's works thoroughly should be enough to understand this so far. So what is Good? Well, I wrote a whole book on 400 pages to explain my view on it. I've found that DQ is working in several "dimensions" and those who not see that are often confused by them. Those are mainly; amount, form and expression. For example a sentence can consist of many or a few words. It can be wrong (very common here). The sentence can also be unreadable because the reader doesn't understand the message. These three makes it difficult enough to make a good message but if you consider each one and use your feeling for the DQ then all of you might be able to do it a little better. Just enough words, not to few and not to many. Try to be consistent and logic. And take some seconds to think about who you are writing for. Quality, real quality, is based on a balance of these three and if you are observant enough you can feel this balance working inside your entire biology. The social balance is also there just like the feeling for intellectual quality. Its always possible to get better. All the bets :-) Jan Anders 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
