Dan >> Dan: > >> No, I do not think the MOQ obviates the individual. Experience is as > >> individual as you get. > > > > Jc: Ok, I agree. But I'm somewhat flumoxed on making a logical > > argument for the individual, since mainly those who need the argument, > > believe in a definition of reality, that obviously makes > > individuality, "unreal". > > > > I hope you see the problem. > > Dan: > I don't see it, no. > > Jc: Yeah, I'm sorry. There was no reason to think you would understand what I'm talking about. My "problem" has come through wrestling with the arguments of this guy that Mary Clark found,Ciarin, who writes a blog. Tuukka paid him to review his book - Zen and the Art of Insanity? Anyway, Ciarin believed he had an airtight argument for the non-existence of the self and Mary thought that the self is a SOM construct so therefore, this idea of a non-self is confirmed by the MoQ. And I'm not sure, but at times it seemed like Marsha argued thus, also.
The key, imho to Ciarin's argument, was his definition of existence. A self IS non existent if you mean by "existent" that which is objectively real. Objective being equivalent to, "independent from a self". It's the basic paradox of SOM. > > > > Dan > > > >>Let me put it this way: I remember you talking > >> about a man who built a mirror so that anyone looking into the mirror > >> could see themselves exactly like everyone else saw them. > >> > >> I objected. If we understand what the MOQ is telling us, we are made > >> up of all four levels of quality. Each of us has evolved a different > >> history over the course of our lives. When we look at someone--anyone, > >> even our own self--we use that personal history to make an > >> intellectual and social (cultural) judgement on what our sense > >> perceptions are telling us. > >> > > > > Jc: In that case I was referring to, "as other's see us", means > > simply physical appearance, at a glance. With no other judgments or > > recognitions involved. Individuals as Images. Now I realize that > > what we see in an image is NOT an individual, but an image or > > imitiation of an individual's appearance > > Dan: > Well then, you haven't grasped what the MOQ is telling us. All our > senses are mediated by not only our cultural values but our own > histories. There are no perceptions, even of physical appearances, > that are without judgments and recognitions. If that were so, we > wouldn't have the means of recalling them. > Jc: Well, that does sound correct to my ears, but then I was never the one touting radical empiricism on this forum. I myself see what you mean and agree that there is no completely pure pre-subjective experience, but there is some sort of lag before higher analytic functions step in. We even have a word for them -snap- judgements. As opposed to the more reflective ones. And while having snap reflexes is handy if you're an animal running for its life or a quarterback, philosophers ought to take some time before rendering final judgements. > > > > >> Phaedrus talks about the green flash of the sun in Lila and how he had > >> never seen it until he read a book that basically told him: hey, look > >> up into the sky and see it! Same thing here. What we see, what we > >> hear, taste, smell, and touch are all mediated by our past > >> experiences, our collection of patterns of value built up over a life > >> time. > >> > > > > Jc: Yes, that sounds right. Experience is always mediated by the > > triad of recognition, projection and mediation but the important part > > is mediation - interpretation. What Pirsig deems "Quality" I believe. > > Dan: > Interpretation is always a static memory of Dynamic Quality. > > > Jc: Interpretation is the will in the present, to understand some past, with an eye toward the future. That's Royce. Does it harmonize with Pirsig at all? I keep wondering. > > > Jc: Truth? Both. An exact copy is as good as an original, in > > physical terms. A man can spend a lifetime perfecting a perfect > > design that can be copied by a chinese laborer in 5 seconds and > > welcome to the modern age. When you copy exactly an object, you get > > an identical object. R&D be damned. Welcome to the New World. > > Dan: > I think you may have missed my point here. No one can exactly copy an > object in an artful manner, least of all a craftsman. You should know > that. > > Jc: True dat, but isn't that the ideal? Isn't what his mind set on, this exactly static copying? Copying a blueprint or a plan or a model. Originality is not necessary. just technique. Don't get me wrong, I don't prefer art over craftsmanship. They both have their place and are equally necessary but craftsmanship is done with an eye toward the past, and good art with an eye toward creating a future. Perfect Craft is static perfection whereas perfect Art is dynamic perfection. > > > >>>John: > >>> And you can't say my reality, isn't the real reality because that would > >>> break the rules of pragmatism AND the MoQ. > >> > >> Dan: > >> We all have our own realities. That's why we don't always agree on > quality. > >> > > > > Jc: Because what is good for me, is not necessarily good for you. > > Yes. This doesn't mean that Good is relative, but that it's > > expression is. DQ is absolute. SQ relative. Whaddya think? > > Dan: > I think Dynamic Quality becomes synonymous with experience in the MOQ. > I know... I've said it before but it's worth repeating. There are no > absolutes in the MOQ, including Dynamic Quality. > > Jc: There may not be explicit absolutes, but the will of Bob sure instantiates as such implicitly, don't you think? > >John: > > Altho to be sure, Royce defines Absolute, as the past. Whatever has > > been done, has been done forever and permanently and thus SQ = the > > past and thus SQ = the absolute. So I need to work on it, I know. > > But isn't that what we're all here for? > > Dan: > I disagree. The past is always being altered. > > Jc: No, I disagree. Even if there are no other absolutes, the past is absolute. You may alter your memory of an event, but any event, happening, has absolutely happened. There's some doubt about Shrodinger's cat, until it's dead, then its dead. > > > > > >>> Jc: Ok, fine. But DQ, I think of in the aspect of "the dynamic". > Change > >>> fore the better, is a goal - an object-of-desire. > >> > >> Dan: > >> Well, if I understand change for the better, we cannot always say what > >> it is before hand, only after the fact. So in essence there is no > >> goal. > > > > Jc: We can say there is no specific goal, but there is an urge for > > betterness. We don't know what exactly in which that betterness will > > inhere, but we want it all the same. > > Dan: > Well, if you mean the grass is always greener on the other side of the > fence, no. That is the danger of desiring something better. Once we > obtain the fruits of that desire, we often times discover we are > wrong. > > Just do what needs doing. > > Jc: the only "need" is betterness. :) If there is no urge for betterness, there is certainly no doing. > > >> Dan: > >> I tend to think of art as caring. Take my writing, for example. I know > >> most folk think I'm weird and they're right. I am. They would rather > >> watch their television shows and have a good time talking about them > >> to all the other people who watch them while I'm whiling away my time > >> writing. > >> > >> Every once in a while I'll get a few dollars ahead and buy some copies > >> of my books and hand them out to people I know... folk I work with, > >> mostly. Sometimes they actually read them... not often, but that > >> doesn't matter. Sometimes. Perhaps my words might influence them in > >> some small way. Maybe they might see the world just for a few seconds > >> in the way I see it. That to me is art. > > > > Jc: I think there is a two-fold process, that goes back and forth. > > There is a social conflict of some kind, that we internalize and deal > > with artistically/intellectually and we express that to our society in > > the hopes of resolving the conflict. That's why I think society and > > intellect are not in conflict, but in intimate relationship. Make > > love, not war. > > Dan: > Again, it isn't that the MOQ sees society as a group of people but > rather a collection of values. When I hand out copies of my books I am > sharing my values. I am not interested in resolving any conflict. > > Jc: Ok, I won't talk about the MoQ 3rd level then. How about just plain old society? The ones we see around us, does the MoQ have anything useful for us to help those? No, we can't change society. All we can change is ourself. Here's what he didn't tell you tho, in order to change yourself, you have to change your society. The individual is an aspect of a social matrix, and if the MoQ can't talk about that matrix, then lets use a different language that can. > You are simply running. That's sort of "being the present" doncha > think? You're running without thought, instinctually, and as hard as > you can. Period. Dan: > Like I said, I don't know... I am not a gazelle. But evolution can > only progress through survival. The gazelle at the rear of the pack is > probably going to be the lion's dinner and will not survive to > propagate its genes. > > Jc: That's true, but is it a "competition" in our human sense of the word? Or is using terms like "survival of the fittest" merely our anthropomorphizing the patterns of nature in ways that are not really true? The indians, for instance, didn't look at it that way and they had a closer relationship to animals than we do. > > > >> > >>>John: > >>> Second, society promotes and supports intellectual patterns, all the > time. > >>> In the form of universities and art museums and grants and love. > Pirsig > >>> had a hard time early on, with society but later on, he found fame and > >>> fortune etc. So is it right to say that the nature of relationship > >>> between > >>> social pattern and intellectual, competitive or conflicted? I disagree > >>> with the MoQ, as understood by many. Fortunately I don't believe in a > MoQ > >>> of fixed or static nature. But the open-ness to Value, leaves room for > >>> growth and improvement. > >> > >> Dan: > >> Of course there is room for improvement. I am not arguing otherwise. > >> However, society does not support intellectual patterns that seek to > >> free us of restrictive social patterns. Quite the reverse. > > > > > > Jc: Ok, there is a social immune system that fights "strangeness" And > > like a biological allergy, can fight against things that it shouldn't. > > I agree. New Ideas have to be aware of those patterns, and overcome > > them to a large extent, in order to "be". In order to be born into a > > social matrix which accepts them and grows into ongoing life. > > Dan: > I don't like this. I get the feeling you are still thinking that > social patterns are a collection of people and not values. > > Jc: You're right about one thing, I'm not a big fan of abstract theories which are divorced from actual individuals. "Traditional, bad metaphysics depends upon a willingness to treat individuals, as they are not, to handle them roughly, replaceably, systematically. If there is one thing a genuine individual is not, and can never be, it is the value of a bound variable or a truth-preserving substitute or a logical atom. ... These ideas are not just wrong, they are pathological and immoral. Individuals are not, metaphysically, "types" but rather the ethical ground of types." Auxier, 152-153. > > > > Dan: > > > > Look at the > >> civil rights movement and how long and hard a fight it was and indeed > >> is, as it is still ongoing. Look at the gay movement now, the fight > >> for equal rights in marriage. The entrenched social patterns fight any > >> perceived threat to their dominance. > >> > > > > Jc: Sure, tribe fights against tribe, and nation against nation. All > > these conflicts are social. Conflict is inherently social because it > > presupposes an "us" vs. a "them" or a "me" vs. a "you." the basic > > duallity of conflict is therefore a plurality of interest that > > considers social ideas such as strength in unity and dominance and > > control. They are distinct from 4th level concerns which only > > consider the truth. > > Dan: > Again, I see you falling into the trap of thinking about social > patterns being the equivalent of groups of people. No. That is not how > the MOQ views social quality patterns at all. > > What I was pointing to with my examples is the entrenched social > patterns that permeate our Western culture, not the people that hold > them. The MOQ does not presuppose an us vs. them as holding competing > social values... it points to the values themselves. > > Jc: Well I guess that's my problem then. I just can't go 100% abstract. I need to think about actual experience of actual people and relate THAT to the ideas of the MoQ. So when I think of social rules, I think of the ways actual societies interrelate. Its a habit of mine that I don't think I can break. But I bet W. James wouldn't approve removing people from social patterns either. > > > >>> This is why I wonder if SOM isn't inextricably connected to social > >>> interests - the powers that be which wish to keep the status quo - > >>> subjects > >>> and objects as metaphysical fundaments yields absolute control. If so, > >>> its > >>> not enough for the MoQ community to attack SOM intellectually. SEE? > I do > >>> have a point here. The MoQ community also has to act socially. > >>> > >>> That's my perspective anyway. > >> > >> Dan: > >> I prefer to look at this from what I consider a more expanded point of > >> view, one offered by the MOQ. The IDEA that gays should have the same > >> right to marry as heterosexuals is a relatively new idea. It goes > >> against the grain of established social patterns. This has nothing to > >> do with subject and object metaphysics... it is about values. > > > > Jc: It's about social values. Marriage is a social concern, unless > > you are talking in pure biological coupling, which doesn't need any > > social ticket or paper. > > Dan: > I think the MOQ would say marriage is a social pattern. No one can > look at two people and tell if they are married. The value of marriage > resides in the non-physical realm. > > Jc: You couldn't tell at a glance, but a study over time would reveal the fact. Perhaps that's the problem we have here. Temporalism is closer to life than mere rationality - which is abstract spatial reasoning. Marriage is a process, not a thing. >> Dan: >> I would say conflict is the result of the differing sets of value we >> hold. > > Jc: Yes, but pointing out that your "we" is social, Dan: > No! Our values are personal. Social patterns have nothing to do with > groups of people! > Jc: It's really hard for me to see how they can *nothing* to do with groups of people. Aren't all social laws about people? We're they all formed by people? > > > John: > > then we see that > > conflict is social and society is conflictual and some society's are > > intellectually-oriented while other societies are socially-oriented > > and it could be said that "intellect conflicts with society" when > > "intellect" and "society" are mere labels for the orientational goals, > > of the individual societies. But in the end, all conflict is social. > > If academics didn't have a society, they wouldn't be academics. > > Dan: > So you are saying there is no conflict between the levels, only within > the social level itself. But you seem to be basing that notion on the > erroneous assumption that social patterns are made up of people. Until > you get past that roadblock, you are going to be stopped from any > understanding of the MOQ. > > Jc: I guess so. The words "social competition" don't seem to have any meaning according to the MoQ as you and others here describe it. But how can that be? And how does it help actual society? > > > >>> Jc: Ah, well now at least I know where Bo gets it. Didn't you just > say > >>> the 4th level is SOM? > >> > >> Dan: > >> Of course not. I said subject and object metaphysics is a collection > >> of intellectual patterns. > > > > Jc: Yes, This is also Roycean. > > Dan: > That is surprising to learn. Do you have any quotes to back this up? > > Jc "I doubt not your right to your postulates in the the laboratory, but what you don't see is that your scientific point of view is also a postulate." I'd like to add the following from the same lesson: "Science is abstraction that simplifies and abstraction is invaluable to science. But he who returns from science to life is a poor pupil if he has not learned the art of forgetting his formulas at the right moment, and of loving the live thing more than the describable type" From Royce's Philosophy 9 course at Harvard, 1915-1916 stenographically recorded by Ralph W. Brown. > > John; > > What we are doing here is philosophy > > and all philosophy is conceptual with some metaphysically valuistic > > basis. > > Dan: > I think it is simpler to say philosophy is a collection of > intellectual quality patterns too. > > Jc :) > Jc: Sure, altho I'd rather say subject object "paradigm" than > metaphysics because I think of metaphysics as ultimate meanings. You > can't get any deeper than metaphysics. A S/O metaphysics, precludes > all other meanings for value and being, than subjects and objects. > But an S/O paradigm, allows the co-existence of other paradigms and > greater ones as well. For intellectual conceptualization is > theoretically unbounded. creative conceptualization has no finite > limit, which is why its not really definable either, you see. Dan: > Of course intellect has limits. It grows from social patterns. > > Jc: Likewise social patterns grow from intellectual patterns. It's a two-way street. >>> >>> Jc: no... I don't need to look it up, I've done that before. I should >>> restate my former postulate tho: When a new metaphysical outlook is >>> adopted, society is changed. >> >> Dan: >> Okay. Then if you don't mind, I will: >> metaphysics: >> "Metaphysics is a broad area of philosophy marked out by two types of >> inquiry. The first aims to be the most general investigation possible >> into the nature of reality: are there principles applying to >> everything that is real, to all that is? – if we abstract from the >> particular nature of existing things that which distinguishes them >> from each other, what can we know about them merely in virtue of the >> fact that they exist? The second type of inquiry seeks to uncover what >> is ultimately real, frequently offering answers in sharp contrast to >> our everyday experience of the world. Understood in terms of these two >> questions, metaphysics is very closely related to ontology, which is >> usually taken to involve both ‘what is existence (being)?’ and ‘what >> (fundamentally distinct) types of thing exist?’ " >> http://www.rep.routledge.com/article/N095 >> >> Dan comments: >> I see nothing here about society or how metaphysics can change it. >> Rather, it appears (to me) as an intellectual pursuit aimed at >> ordering reality. > > Jc: first of all, the society is implicit. Dan: > Perhaps according to subject and object metaphysics but not to the MOQ. > Jc: From my perspective, the MoQ does not have a good handle onsocial patterns. > > > John: > > It ordered the > > conceptualizations of language which formed the structure of the > > questions. It formed the intellect which out of the social/biological > > matrix, arose. It's already got a pre-patterned agenda, in order to > > continue and thus "be" that shouldn't be forgotten or abstracted from > > the understanding of what "intellect" is. > > Dan: > Again, you are using society as a sort of thing, an object, a > collection of people that creates structure. This has nothing to do > with the MOQ or with the definition of metaphysics that I offered. > > Jc: You and others keep telling me my grasp of society is all wrong. Ok, then what are these social patterns divorced from all groups of people? You seem intent on reinstating an idea that Pirsig in ZAMM calls "asinine" - that a pattern like the law of gravity can just float around in the air without any connection to human thinking. Since I'm the one everybody agrees is confused, then enlighten me on what social patterns are. > >John: > > I think the deepest understanding that Pirsig's 4 levels bring, is > > that they are. Together, in all we do., Sure the build upon a basic > > core, but they don't leave or forsake what they build upon, any more > > than a building leaves its foundation. The foundation is implicity in > > the structure and society is implicit in intellect. > > Dan: > You are mixing metaphors here and creating confusion. That confusion > does not arise if we follow the tenets of the MOQ. > > The levels are not continuous. They are discrete. > > Jc: Your abstract systems can be discrete, but life is continuous and flowing. Perhaps that's been my problem all along, I keep trying to map the MoQ to actual experience, empirically and it's just another abstract system. If this is so, then I'm disappointed in the MoQ. >>> Jc: Because asking what generates the MOQ, is also a good question. >> >> Dan: >> What? You mean who, right? The author's name on my copy of Lila is >> Robert Pirsig. How about yours? :-) >> > > Jc: No, close, but not quite. The interesting question is what > generates Robert Pirsig to generate the MoQ. And that's obviously the > right question because its the same question the Author asks himself; > all through his work. Dan: > By asking "what generates Robert Pirsig to generate the MOQ" we are > essentially falling into turtles all the way down trap. What generates > that which generates Robert Pirsig to generate the MOQ? And is it that > generates what it is that generates that which generates... oh, you > get the idea. > Jc: I do, but there are natural stopping places. As Jan Anders once said, and it stuck in my head, How many mirrors do you need? You need enough, that's all. It's like Pirsig's "Peace of mInd" test. Dan: > > Instead, isn't it easier and far more profitable to examine the MOQ > itself? I think so. The MOQ starts with experience. Jc: that's the rub. My experience of social patterns is not in some abstract realm of intellectualized patterns, but in the relations with people, individually and groups. It seems that if the MoQ starts with experience, maybe it ought to stick with experience. Dan: > When we begin > asking what generates experience we are caught up in subject and > object thinking which the MOQ is designed to encompass in a more > expansive perspective. > > >> > >> Dan: > >> I would hope we can reach some common ground. > >> > > > > Jc: Yes, that is the goal. To float off in space, but land on common > > ground. I don't believe we achieve unity by focusing upon the literal > > words of Pirsig's MoQ, but we achieve unity by focusing upon the > > generator of Pirsig's MoQ. > > > > Whew!. How's that for dramatic and grandiose? But there I stand, I > > can do no other. > > Dan: > I fear my hopes are being dashed against the rocks of confusion. > > Jc: As my hopes are dashed against the rock of obdurate abstraction. And yet, here we are. So far. anyway. Yours, John 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
