Dan, Whew! These do get long, don't they.
On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 12:56 PM, Dan Glover <[email protected]> wrote: > John, > > I hope you're enjoying the weekend. I've been spending a rare two days > in a row off by lounging in my backyard garden listening to the > pigeons coo and watching the hummingbirds flit about interspersed with > doing some reading and tapping out replies to emails on my new Kindle > Fire. > > Jc: That sounds great, Dan. My college daughters have those and they love them, they can watch Netflix all the time now. Yay. They also download text books of course, but its a tossup which gets more use. Dan: > One particularly brave hummingbird buzzed close to my ear and startled > the bejeezus out of me. I thought for just an instant that it was a > giant bumblebee! Strange creatures to be sure... > > Jc: It's strange indeed, how the smallest bird is king of the sky. Hummingbirds are fearless. Dan: > Anyway, the Kindle Fire is unbelievably cool though I am pretty > certain I'll manage to drop it and break it when I doze off as I am > apt to do while sitting in the warm sunshine and feeling that > delightful breeze blowing over me. That's why I had the foresight to > purchase the two year warranty. > > Jc: those devices are sturdier than they seem. I drove over my iphone with a 3/4 ton Ford pickup full of tools, and the screen cracked, but everything worked fine. > So, onward with our discussion... > > > >> 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? > > Dan: > Huh. I searched Amazon and couldn't find it. It's insane not to have > your book on Amazon, and even more ludicrous to pay for reviews. Or > maybe I am searching for the wrong title? > > Jc: he says his publisher is going to get it out on Amazon, soon. I know Mary ordered a copy, I would have but all my money was tied up in Amazon credits! Lu found this deal where if you take your tax return ahead of time in Amazon credits, you get 10%. Anyway, I haven't heard from Tuukka in a while. He told us at LS, he was made fun of here Shame on y'all. Dan: > Anyway, it seem sad that any author would stoop to paying for a > review, though I know it is an all too common practice. Personally, I > wouldn't read the book now if it was given to me, much less buy it. > > Jc: I can see it. Especially when you're a poor student, trying to get a big success and you need feedback. People's time is important to them and it's not easy finding readers anymore. Refer to Ron's recent post on Anti-intellectualism, for why. Dan: > Part of being a writer, at least for me, is having the opportunity to > share my values. It's wonderful when someone enjoys my work enough to > leave a review. I do a happy dance each time it happens. > > Jc: Absolutely. Good readers are more precious than gold, to a good writer. There's not as many good readers as there used to be, I think. Maybe I'm wrong. I do live in California. I don't know anyone, outside of my family, that reads. Books I mean. They can *read* of course. Dan: But paying for a review smacks of coercion. Am I going to lie to my > potential readers in order to sell books. No. And no reputable author > will. > > Jc: I'll kidnap them and tie them up and make them listen... Nah, jk. I don't know how to write to bunches of people I don't know. Too much back explanation required. > > John: > > 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. > > Dan: > But I bet they all still get up in the morning (or afternoon in my > case) and dress their self. :-) > > Seriously though, I think this is a misunderstanding when it comes to > the MOQ. From Lila: > > "The value is between the stove and the oaths. Between the subject and > the object lies the value. This value is more immediate, more directly > sensed than any "self" or any "object" to which it might be later > assigned. It is more real than the stove. Whether the stove is the > cause of the low quality or whether possibly something else is the > cause is not yet absolutely certain. But that the quality is low is > absolutely certain. It is the primary empirical reality from which > such things as stoves and heat and oaths and self are later > intellectually constructed." > > Dan comments: > > It isn't that the MOQ supports the idea of non-self or that it is a > subject and object metaphysics construct (whatever that means) but > rather the concept of self arises along with all intellectual > concepts. Self isn't part of a primary empirical reality. It emerges > later. That does not mean it is non-existent, however. > > Jc: Yeah, I agree. I tried to make that point too, but I'm not sure if it ever got through. I came to the conclusion that in people who hold this view - the non-self - there is a strong subconscious urge to do because they are trapped by their social selves or situation and need an escape for some reason or another. And sure, we can argue intellectually with them but some problems don't yield to intellect. > 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: > Maybe I read this wrong, but how on earth can self exist independent of > self? > > Jc: It can't. That's the paradox. Each side of the self/reality dichotomy can be used against stuckness on the other side. If they are stuck in self, you argue their reality and if they are stuck in reality( as in scientific materialism) you point them to their definition of self and point to it's weakness as a postulate. >> 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. Dan: > You're talking about two different levels... snap reflexes so far as > animals go relate to biological patterns. Philosophers and their ideas > relate to intellectual patterns. > > Jc: Ok, but if we're walking in the woods, and we hear a heavy snapping of brush, our cultural definitions shoot the word "bear" into our consciousness and we have a history of seeing bears in this section and our biology shoots adrenaline into our bloodstream and I doubt if much philosophophizing gets done at the time, because philosophy, or reflective thought, which we call intellectual thinking, is disconnected, to a certain extent, from the immediate now. But everything else, in an individual, doesn't happen in levels - it just happens. I don't know what that has to do with what we were talking about, but its interesting to me. I never thought of it quite like that. The hot stove analogy reminded me -there are no levels in nature, only in an intellectual scheme which creates them. But once created, they have to mesh with experience. All static things decay and die, including static intellectual patterns unless the impetus of experience, keeps them alive. When they stiffen (into religion) they lose their dynamic touch and die. Ye who are anti-religious, beware of making a religion out of it. >> > >> >> 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. Dan: > I would say that according to the MOQ, interpretation is always in the > past, not the present. This unfolding moment correlates to direct > experience, or Dynamic Quality. > > Jc: There is the interpretation and then there is the act of interpreting and Royce was talking about the latter rather than former because it's interpretation which translates the memories of the past, right now, for some future end or goal. You can't have an interpretation without a past, or without an act of will in the present, toward some projected future. The act of will is a moral act, and Royce like Pirsig holds to a moral cosmology, and like Pirsig, to the theoretical nature of philosophy. All we can do is paint pictures and hang them in a gallery. There is no absolute object to copy and get right. >> > 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. Dan: > A machine stamps out hundreds and thousands of exact copies. A > craftsman, if they are artfully engaged, leaves an imprint of that > artistry in everything they do, even it is writing one's initials in > the concrete they just poured. > > Jc: I'm sure there is a way to approach pouring concrete artistically, but in the economic world that pays for the concrete on a big job, all that matters is getting it done before the stuff sets and getting it done right. The boss paying the wages, likes a good profit so there's not a lot of people to help and there's a lot of hard labor to be done and a feeling of satisfaction at the end of the day. But when you do a couple a week, for years, you don't sign your name to the thing. Craftsmanship is a source of pride, but it's not art. And I really don't see any way it rationally could be, since the aims are so different. Craftsmanship has social goals, art aims at the highest level there is and is largely an individual thing. Does that mean its more moral to be a painter than a brick mason? Not at all, because life isn't just one level or another. Life is the levels in balanced harmony. > >John: > > > > 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. > > Dan: > I don't think that's right. For one thing, there is no perfection in > either art or craft. Both relate to the past with an eye to the > future. An artist doesn't work in a vacuum, nor does a craftsman. > > Jc: Anything can be art, but everything can't be art. That would make the term meaningless. >> 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? Dan: > I think Robert Pirsig says somewhere that the MOQ will work until > something better comes along. He has always struck me as a pretty > self-effacing guy and I somehow doubt he would appreciate his words > being taken as absolute, either explicitly or implicitly. > > Jc: A man has the right to own the integrity of his work, especially when that work IS a work of art. Something better than the MoQ? Fine, but the MoQ made better? Or different? It's like leaning over a painter's shoulder and "improving" the brushstrokes. It's rude. But isn't that what we do with philosophers? All the time? After all, that's what keeps them alive. That's what keeps Plato alive, after all these years. I think Pirsig is pretty amazing and even moreso, for tossing his philosophy into the ring like he did. Lila's child was an incredible thing, when you think about it. > > > >> >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. > Dan: > I just read that Tupac is alive and well and living in eastern > Pennsylvania with Elvis and Schrodinger's cat. :-) > > The past is forever shifting and changing with the times. The > conqueror writes the history, not the vanquished. For a hundred years > or better it was known as the Battle of Wounded Knee rather than the > massacre it was. That is not an isolated incident. > > Jc: You see, you argue that the past was truly different than the explanations given you as a child, and you are right. The actual past, is the absolute that we try and formulate with our conceptions and teachings. In a sense, it's an unattainable absolute because we can't go back and bring it again, altho electronic media mimics the sounds and images of the past, it's important to remember that those are imitations, and the real past is something that we have to work out with other people and we can only get close, never exactly there. It's an interesting viewpoint, I have to say. >> >> 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: > When we begin to artfully engage the world, we start to see the > futility of seeking to better anything. Jc: I don't know, Dan. When I scratch an itch, it seems better to me that it doesn't itch anymore. Peace of mind is a goal, because so often something comes to our attention that we want to affect and we don't get peace of mind until its done. If it was all futile, I don't think I'd have peace of mind about THAT. Dan: > Rather, by doing what is > needed, by cultivating compassion, and by recognizing our inability to > foresee the future no matter how prescient we had heretofore believed > we were, we tend to allow the grass to grow by itself. > > Jc: you picked on a sore spot with me. I live in a community where I have to keep the landlord, and my wife, happy, and they don't like long grass. I explain how it's better for the butterflies and the bees and the soil and water retention and all the other plants and the garden and the birds. But they say its ugly, so I mow it, even tho I hate doing so. But when I'm done, I have to admit it does look good. And I've comprimised by letting it grow pretty long between mowings and not doing the edges. We are fortunate, in this county, to have abundant water. It came from all the Chinese labor during the gold rush and money to pay them. Some 70,000 acres of high mountain watershed, diverted into reservoirs and canals and we get irrigation water all summer long. Even while the rest of California is going through a drought, we got grass that keeps getting watered and needing to >> >> 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? Dan: > What I see around me is patterns. The people who I associate with are > guided by the values of the culture, by the relationships that form. > > >John: > > 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. > > Dan: > Social patterns are an aspect of the individual who is made up of all > four levels. The MOQ encompasses everything, but to mistake social > patterns for groups of people renders any further understanding of it > impossible. > > Jc: Ok, when we talk about social patterns,we are talking about laws, written and unwritten by which societies are guided. I see the way I've been using "social patterns" is confusing because I don't make that distinction clear. It's like my argument with Arlo, just because a distinction doesn't exist at a fundamental level, doesn't mean it's not useful in communicating what we mean. I'll do better at it from now on. > 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? Dan: > All we have is our human sense of the word. > Jc; And when we apply our human words, to non-human nature, we are prone to mistaken interpretation. Is my point. > > > John: > > 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. > > Dan: > Well, before the final edition of On the Origins of Species, no one > used the term "survival of the fittest." In Lila, Phaedrus decides > that the MOQ has no quarrel with the theory of evolution and I am not > learned enough to do so. > > Jc: It did more than apply the idea of competition to nature, it reified competition among men as natural. I have some problem with that. I got my thinking from Paul Ehrlich, who coined the term CoEvolution. It's described here <http://kk.org/outofcontrol/ch5-b.html> thusly: " collectors figure out which plants butterflies ate. With the prospect of perfect specimens, they did this thoroughly. The result was a rich literature of plant/butterfly communities, whose summary indicated that many butterflies in the larvae stage chomp on only one specific plant. Monarch caterpillars, for instance, devour only milkweeds. And, it seemed, the milkweed invited only the monarch to dine on it. Ehrlich noticed that in this sense the butterfly was reflected in the plant, and the plant was reflected in the butterfly. Every step the milkweed took to keep the monarch larvae at bay so the worm wouldn't devour it completely, forced the monarch to "change colors" and devise a way to circumvent the plant's defenses. The mutual reflections became a dance of two chameleons belly to belly. In defending itself so thoroughly against the monarch, the milkweed became inseparable from the butterfly. And vice versa. Any long-term antagonistic relationship seemed to harbor this kind of codependency." Nature is more a codependency, than a competition. Competition is a human term. > > >> > 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. > > Dan: > The MOQ is not an abstract theory divorced from actual individuals. > You seem to be making it into something it isn't in an effort not to > understand what Robert Pirsig is saying. > > Jc: All the years I read and discussed Pirsig, I never had any problems with what I read. But when I joined here, I started to have problems because I found out that my interpretations differed from others. I guess that's how you get Sunni and Shia, in the world. > >John: > > "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: > So now you're saying the MOQ is both a traditional and a bad > metaphysics? "...ethical ground of types" seems to correspond quite > nicely to what the MOQ is saying or perhaps I am misreading it. > > Jc: Like I said, it's a certain interpretation of Pirsig I have problems with. The MoQ itself, not so much. But yes, I agree with what Randall Auxier saying about Royce, sounds a lot like Pirsig to me. But then there are many interpreters of Royce, who read him as an absolutist and that's not Pirsig at all. But then, according to Auxier, neither is it Royce! Whew. It's a good thing we have infinite time, to work all this out. >> > >> > 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. Dan: > No one is removing people from social patterns. We (and I use that > term as individuals not a collective) are made up of ALL FOUR LEVELS > OF VALUE! > > Jc: I apologize. I must be dense or something. I finally think I got where you're coming from. >> 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 have personally known couples who have been together forever. They > have charming children and even more charming grandchildren. I assumed > they were married until I got invitations to their wedding. And no, it > isn't a renewal of vows. They were never married in the first place. > Who'd of thunk it? > > Jc: I define marriage, rather simplistically, biologically, rather than socially. Coyotes mate for life, then their "married". Two people live together and sleep together? They're married. The Church likes to control things nowadays, but who married Abraham and Sarah? She went into his tent and they got married. I know this isn't the usual way to define marriage, but it seems simpler to me. > > > >>> 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? > > Dan: > Social patterns evolve from biological patterns. > > Jc: Isn't it truer, that Social people evolved from biological people? Never mind. I'm tired of thinking about it. > Jc: From my perspective, the MoQ does not have a good handle on social > patterns. Dan: > Then change your perspective! > > I'll try Dan, I'll surely try. Take care, 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
