Hi Dan,
> > > Let me put it a slightly different way, Dan. remember when the art > > teacher was so impressed by Phaedrus's "sculpture"? And yet Phdrs > > didn't see why? > > Dan: > Absolutely. Phaedrus didn't understand DeWeese. They were on different > wave lengths. One was a rationalist and the other an artist. > > Jc: And yet they were friends. That is, there wasn't any antipathy or competition driving their relationship, but an interest in each other's different way of thinking. I find it telling that the artist seemed to "get" the intellectual more than the intellectual got the artist. At least in this story. > John: > > The classic seems dynamic to the romantic, and vice > > versa. But ultimately, the "realest" thing we can be sure of, is an > > aesthetic good - something that "feels" right. It has to be logical, > > of course. Anything illogical is bad thinking, but logic is like the > > law - a schoolmaster, and does not itself own the goal of it's own > > technique. > > Dan: > Well, in that same section of ZMM, DeWeese asks Phaedrus to look at a > light switch in his studio that's not working. He says how DeWeese has > the look of an art patron asking the artist a question about a > painting he doesn't understand. > > Jc: DeWeese didn't understand electricity but that wasn't the bone of contention in this episode - it was whether or not intuition can guide one in seeking solutions. Phaedrus intuitively knew that the problem was in the switch because he had some technical information about the way electricity works, that DeWeese did not. This was frustrating to an artist who prides himself on listening to his intuition alone. > He contrasts DeWeese with the Sutherlands in that he is not > anti-technology at all... he is simply so far removed from it he > doesn't understand it. But he is always willing to learn more. DeWeese > becomes frustrated when he doesn't understand how Phaedrus knew it was > the switch, especially when told it was obvious. > > In that sense, DeWeese is neither a classic personality or a romantic. > He is beyond that. He is an artist. > > Jc: I agree, but I associate the romantic with art. Is that wrong? > >John: > > But art, somehow, does. > > > > All logic came from a society that was following quality - what is > > good. Rhetoric is an art. Logic is a tool. > > Dan: > Anything can be seen as art as long as it is well done. I think that's > one of the lessons from ZMM... even a welder can be seen as an artist. > > Jc: I've encountered this issue before - is craftsmanship the same as artistry? Is following a blueprint the same as creating a blueprint? Is a chinese craftsman copying the Mona Lisa, brush stroke for brush stroke, himself as artistic as Leonardo DaVinci? I don't think so. I think Art is more tied to DQ and craftsmanship to SQ. > > Jc: you can say just as much "molecules don't make people" but the > truth is, they do. Dan: > But that is not what the MOQ says... biological patterns make use of > inorganic molecules in the same way that social patterns make use of > biological patterns. Human beings are composed of all four value > levels but that doesn't mean social patterns are made up of biological > patterns any more than biological patterns are made up of molecules. > Otherwise, we'd have talking rocks. > > Jc: "make use of" is fine with me. As long as it's understood that, without the lower level "to be made use of", the upper would not be. > Jonh: > > what is different from a mere assemblage of > > molecules, and those comprising the patterns of life, is more than > > molecules - it's certain patterns. But those patterns rely upon lower > > patterns, for their expression and very being so to denigrate the > > lower leves is as silly as a man denigrating his molecules. I know > > there is quite a lot of Christian philosophy, which does exactly that > > - hate the flesh. But I'd hope the Moq would be more enlightened. > > Dan: > The MOQ does not hate the flesh, nor does it denigrate the 'lower' > patterns, at least not to my knowledge. > > Jc: I can agree that the MoQ does not but the community of interpretation based upon the MoQ, often does, imho. It is seen in derogating "merely social" patterns. > > John: > > A bunch of biological beings do not alone > > make a society. But you can't have a society without a collection of > > biological beings. > > Dan: > But you can have social patterns without a collection of biological beings. > > Jc: No. You can't. There has never, ever been in experience, a society without people. If you counter with such abstract social patterns as "laws", I have to say that laws were created by people, for people. They don't create themselves! > John: > > The lower levels can't compete with the higher - > > they comprise the higher, in a fashion of laddered nestings of > > meaning. You can't have the upper rungs, without the lower. > > Dan: > In the MOQ, the levels are often in opposition to one another. Jc: Well that's a shame because in real life, the levels support and harmonize with one another. You can't have intellectual patterns, without social language, for instance. And intellectual ideas are always criticisms of old intellectual ideas. New social patterns are created out of new ideas. You seem to be conflating the opposition the old has against the new to inter-level conflict. That's more a DQ vs SQ thing rather than a social vs intellect thing. Dan: > Social > patterns seek to control biological patterns in the same way that > biological patterns seek to control inorganic patterns. It isn't that > they seek to destroy one another, however. > > Jc: I agree. I don't see control as the same as competition. When my kids were babies, I controlled what they ate and where they lived but there was no competition involved. > > > > > > > > > > Jc: Yes. Society is set up for the biological good of the whole, > > over the wrong-headed and self destructive tendencies of insane > > individuals. And we're not very good at telling the degenerates from > > the messiah's so we just lump them all in together. But this is not a > > war against life itself, or the patterns that make up life. Life as a > > whole, is improved, with the curbing of the violent. This is not any > > sort of overthrowing of biology, it's guiding and informing - not > > competing. > > Dan: > To be in opposition to something does not imply war. Instead, look at > the higher levels as seeking to free the lower ones. > > Jc: I definitely see it as "freeing" but I can't see freeing as opposition. >> Dan: >> If someone or something was making use of you, controlling you, >> dominating you, would you accept that? Or would you oppose it? >> > > Jc: Well it all depends, I suppose. Were they doing a good job? Dan: > According to who? You or them? > > John: > > Am I happy? > > Dan: > Are you? > > John: > > Is life exactly what I want? > > Dan: > No. Your life is exactly what your oppressors want. > > Jc: I guess my particular point is that my life is as I want. If there is some oppressor, making it so, who cares? If they or it are forcing me to be content then pragmatically speaking, so what? As you said yourself, the upper levels are freeing the lower. Freeing is not opposition and its a good kind of control. > John: > > Then I guess it wouldn't > > bother me that I was being controlled. I understand the point that > > nobody likes the feeling of knowingly being controlled, but that > > "knowing" is by some other. That is, it's a social knowing and > > metaphysics disposes of it handily if we need be. > > > > But your question begs too many different paths, like "opposition". > > Dan: > Really. How about the kindly farmer who lovingly feeds the animals > each day? Do they realize that they are being fattened up for a > purpose? Or do they simply enjoy being taken care of? Oh look... here > comes that stupid farmer again with our supper. Yum! > > Jc: I admit there are bad forms of control. My point was that all control is not bad. If the Farmer is of a kindly nature and treats his animals well, it's probably a fair trade. All animals eventually die and becomes food for other animals. This can be accepted gracefully and life can be good. > John: > > If my opposition made any difference, then could it be said I was in > > fact, being controlled? > > Dan: > So you just give up? > > Jc: No, actually I don't think I'm being controlled by anybody. Except maybe by my wife and that doesn't count :) >> >> Dan: >> "They are discrete. They have very little to do with one another. >> Although each higher level is built on a lower one it is not an >> extension of that lower level. Quite the contrary. The higher level >> can often be seen to be in opposition to the lower level, dominating >> it, controlling it where possible for its own purposes." [Lila] > > > > Jc: Sure. I realize I'm arguing with the author's words. But is > that a valid effort? Dan: > I think it is a valid effort if you are offering something better. > > Jc: I definitely think it's better for intellect to struggle with societies problems than to ignore it all as "beneath 4th level concerns" Even the dictum to solve the problem in one's own mind and heart first, is not a necessary limit but a necessary beginning. Let's take those beginning steps, for sure. But don't stop there or the MoQ is doomed. Staticity = death. John: > > I think Pirsig experienced more social conflict > > in his life than most people. His particular experience there isn't > > the best guide to universal rules. > > Dan: > Perhaps not, but he wrote the book. > > Jc: Amen. There seems to be an aspect of conflict, necessary to true art. The conflict between the individual and his society. It can be so fruitful. It can be so degenerate. I don't know of any easy formula that distincitifies between. or, said in another way, metaphysics ain't for sissies. John: > > When you're talking about all of > > reality, fitting into 4 discrete levels, you can't say they are > > completely discrete, because everything is in intimate relation and > > while there is conflict and problems and pain, in the world, there is > > also support, and upholding, and caring and love. > > Dan: > "Trying to explain social moral patterns in terms of inorganic > chemistry patterns is like trying to explain the plot of a > word-processor novel in terms of the computer's electronics. You can't > do it. You can see how the circuits make the novel possible, but they > do not provide a plot for the novel. Jc: There ya go. Plain as day. What would a novel be, without a plot? Dan quoting Lila: The novel is its own set of > patterns. Similarly the biological patterns of life and the molecular > patterns of organic chemistry have a "machine language" interface > called DNA but that does not mean that the carbon or hydrogen or > oxygen atoms possess or guide life. A primary occupation of every > level of evolution seems to be offering freedom to lower levels of > evolution. But as the higher level gets more sophisticated it goes off > on purposes of its own." [Lila] > > Dan comments: > Like the plot of a novel, caring cannot be found in the physical > universe. It resides in its own set of patterns. > > Jc: Quality is indefinable, but everybody KNOWS what it is. That is, it can be experienced in the patterns that make up the physical universe. > John: > > It takes > > intellectual love, to care about the intellectual paradigms of society > > and when the conflict comes - it comes between different patterns on > > the same level. > > Dan: > Intellectual paradigms of society does not correspond to social patterns. > > Jc: Then they should try harder. The goal of all intellectual analysis is conformity with the object of its attention. > John: > > We critique a society's metaphysics, intellectually. > > We oppose it's social expansions, socially. > > Dan: > Again, it gets confusing when you mix metaphors. Jc: Heh. Metaphysics ain't for sissies. And neither is poeisis. But I'm always willing to clarify and re-state. But what I was referring to, above, that social patterns require other social patterns to oppose them. You can't oppose a social pattern, solely by an idea that nobody grasps. Dan: > Social patterns do > not invent metaphysics. A metaphysics is a collection of intellectual > patterns that seek to control social patterns. > > Jc: Social patterns do not invent metaphysics. Metaphysics invent social patterns. >> Dan: >> Intellect is not the highest value in the MOQ. > > > Jc: I realize that Dan, but how quickly it gets forgotten. The > argument goes: since DQ is undefined, we can't really talk about it. Dan: > Not at all. We talk about Dynamic Quality all the time. We define it > all the time. Only once defined, it is no longer Dynamic Quality. > > Jc: Right! so we only talk about SQ. And since that's all we talk about, that's all we believe in. I'm aware of the argument. > Dan: > > Everything we do is static and therefore we are confined to static > > intellect, which is the 4th level - the highest. Intellect Uber > > Alles, I see it. And no, you're not guilty of it. But I could name > > half a dozen who are. > > Dan: > The MOQ states that experience and Dynamic Quality are synonymous. > Jc: Then the MoQ is wrong. Experience is generated by Dynamic Quality, but that doesn't make them synonomous. Any more than a father is synonomous with his child or electricity with a dynamo. A certain correlation exists, sure. But equality? No way. Dan: Since the MOQ starts with experience, that is the highest value. Look > at it this way: experience is a river, deep and wild and dangerous. To > jump into it is to put the self in danger. So, each of us have a > bucket we fill from the river of experience and we call the water > inside that bucket our life. We define everything in our bucket and > call it static quality. But that defining is itself Dynamic Quality. > We are always in touch with it even if we can never fully define the > definition. > > Jc: No. Look at it this way. Existence is. Any river environment that defines the boundaries of this existence, do not themselves make this existence because existence is temporal, not spatial. I have to stop now. Taking lu ouy for frozen yoghurt, soon as she finishes mowing the lawn. :) John > > > >> > >> > > >> > Rob: > >> > > >> > > >> >> > As intellect informs society so Art must inform intellect to > midigate > >> >> it's > >> >> > destructive formations. > >> >> > >> >> > >> > Jc: That sounds absolutely right on. Excessive romantic quality > calls for > >> > more classic and excessive classic requires an aesthetic intuitive > leap out > >> > of the prison. It's an ongoing process of historical intellectual > >> > evolution. > >> > >> Dan: > >> I don't think Lila makes use of the romantic/classic split in the same > >> fashion that ZMM does. > >> > > > > Jc: You're right. And it's a shame, in my view. There is a > > dualistic aspect to human consciousness which begs for metaphysical > > explanation. > > Dan: > I think that's where the Dynamic/static split comes into play. > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> >> Dan: > >> >> I think this is not quite correct. The moral codes actively oppose > one > >> >> another. Intellectual patterns do not seek to inform social patterns, > >> >> rather they oppose them. > >> > > >> > > >> > Jc: > >> > > >> > Dan, is NOT a heretic. :-) > >> > >> Dan: > >> If you mean that I don't seek to overlay my own values upon the MOQ, > >> you're probably right. Rather, I seek to understand the MOQ. > >> > > > > > > Jc: My purpose is to form my own views, out of experience entire. > > The MoQ is a tool, a good tool, that helps and informs my world view > > but Pirsig himself could never be captured by words set in stone. And > > Making the MoQ a static thing, is wrong to the point of evil. It's > > crucifying. Quality demands so much more, than just reading some > > books written in the context of the dark ages of American > > philosophical thought and pinning it to some Academic Board, like a > > dead butterfly. > > Dan: > The MOQ is a collection of intellectual patterns of value. No one is > making it static. It is static. Our delving into it is a Dynamic > exercise, however. That doesn't mean we should ignore what we don't > like about it and substitute our own point of view. > > >John: > > Screw that. > > Dan: > Okay. So we are basically wasting our time here. > > > > > > >> > > >> > Dan: > >> > > >> > > >> >> Remember the parties Phaedrus attended and > >> >> how all the intellectuals were rebelling against 'The Man'? > >> >> Similarly, the code of art would not inform intellect so much as it > >> >> would seek to usurp it. I don't see that artists are interested in > the > >> >> mundane world. They seek to create something new, not to imitate... > >> >> sort of like the difference between philosophy and philosophology. > >> >> > >> >> > >> > Jc: I'm no longer so convinced that any of those dichotomies are > >> > necessarily opposed, and most especially the last two. > >> > >> Dan: > >> There is the studying of philosophy (philosophology) and there is > >> actively creating it. > >> > > > > Jc: Philosophy is nothing if not constantly reinterpreted and > > re-created throughout history. I think schools are no good at doing > > philosophy because it takes too much time and the right kind of > > atmosphere. That's probably why, academically speaking, they stick > > pretty much to philosophology. > > Dan: > Well, yes. > > > > > > > > > > >> >John: > >> > Philosophy and philosophology are intertwined throughout time. > Philosophy > >> > is always as much in dialogue with its past, as it is in the present. > >> > Understanding how our thoughts became as they are, through the > choices made > >> > before us, is fundamental to "knowing thyself". I admit they are > slightly > >> > different, but they are both necessary. You can't have one without > the > >> > other. > >> > >> Dan: > >> Sure you can. Anyone so inclined can study philosophy. > >> > >> zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.... > >> > >> oh... sorry... dozed off there for a minute... is there anything drier > >> than dead white guys holding forth? > >> > >> You see, not everyone can write about it with the skill of, say, a > >> Robert Pirsig. > > > > Jc: Sure, but you do have to have a certain level of background, to > > write with that skill. Do you think ZAMM would have had its impact, > > without that scene with the chairman? You have to know about Plate > > and Kant and the story of philosophy, in order to extend and > > participate. Otherwise you're just another back pack hippie, claiming > > some personal insight that nobody else gets or cares about. > > Dan: > I think Phaedrus admitted he was a poor student, which is lucky for us > because otherwise he might well have become the Chairman and we never > would have heard of him. > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > Atomic bombs are unhealthy for living things and living things are > >> >> valuable. > >> >> > >> >> Dan: > >> >> I think that depends upon the context. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > Jc: I think young Bob would have walked out of your classroom, Dan! > You > >> > can't really argue or temporize "Atomic bombs are unhealthy for living > >> > things and living things are valuable" > >> > >> Dan: > >> Hey, if young Bob can find my classroom he's more than welcome to walk > >> out of it. I just hope the door doesn't hit him where the good lord > >> split him. > >> > >> Nothing is inherently evil just as nothing is inherently good. You can > >> choke to death on a saltine but they make a hell of a sardine > >> sandwich. > > > > Nothing inherently exists, so sure, I can't argue there. But we're > > all humans living on a planet, and down here, atomic bombs are bad > > news. Old Bob never got any wiser than young Bob on that question. > > Maybe it's been a while since the cold war and the threat of atomic > > bombs as an ever-present danger in the consciousness of society, but > > those bombs didn't go away. Ukraine turned all theirs over to Russia, > > in exchange for a guarantee of borders and look how well THAT went. > > We may see the threat reawakened in our lifetime and nobody sane > > thinks there's anything good about that. > > Dan: > Like it or not, our little old planet is but a speck of dust. To > believe that 'down here' is all that matters is to court extinction. > > In my opinion... of course, > > Dan > > http://www.danglover.com > 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 > -- "finite players play within boundaries. Infinite players play *with* boundaries." 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
