John, On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 5:04 PM, John Carl <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Dan, > >> Jc: It has taken me a while, but I think I understand better what >> > James meant by immediate experience. One thing for sure, immediate >> > experience requires Radical Empiricism, as DQ requires the MoQ. But >> > more on that later. >> >> Dan: >> Dynamic Quality and immediate experience are both intellectual terms >> pointing to that which cannot be quantified. The terms themselves may >> require explanations, however. >> >> > Jc: That's right. All terms only have meaning to the extent that they've > been fully explained. Full explanation is the business of the > meta-physician.
Dan: I do not believe there can ever be a full explanation of Dynamic Quality and experience. > > >> > >> >> >> >> >JC: >> >> > Most of experience is conceptual, in fact an idealist would claim >> all of >> >> > it is. >> >> >> >> Dan: >> >> All intellectual experience is conceptual, if you like. I prefer using >> >> the term 'intellectual quality patterns' rather than 'conceptual >> >> experience' but either could be seen as correct. >> >> >> > >> > Jc: Royce puts it like this: conceptualising is necessary for >> > philosophy. Whether it's necessary for experience is another matter, >> > and definitionally unknowable, but if you're going to talk philosophy, >> > you have to talk conceptually. And there is no ultimate grounding for >> > postulates except ethical. > > >> >> Dan: >> Philosophy is pretty dry stuff, at least to me. I can almost hear >> myself snoring... >> >> > Jc: oh no, Dan. It's exciting as all get-out. True, you do have to put a > bit of effort in, but I think it's full of satisfaction for the true seeker. Dan: That's where we differ. If I ever have problems sleeping, reading a little philosophy is better than counting a million sheep. > >>> >> Dan: >>> >> "In this plain of understanding static patterns of value are divided >>> >> into four systems: inorganic patterns, biological patterns, social >>> >> patterns and intellectual patterns. They are exhaustive. That's all >>> >> there are. If you construct an encyclopedia of four topics-Inorganic, >>> >> Biological, Social and Intellectual-nothing is left out. No "thing," >>> >> that is. Only Dynamic Quality, which cannot be described in any >>> >> encyclopedia, is absent. >>> >> >>> >> "But although the four systems are exhaustive they are not exclusive. >>> >> They all operate at the same time and in ways that are almost >>> >> independent of each other. >>> >> >>> >> >>> > Jc: Yes, that's the passage with which I'm taking issue. I am saying > that >>> > the higher levels are dependent upon the continuous action of the > lower. >>> >>> Dan: >>> The levels share an evolutionary history, if that's what you mean. >>> >> >> Jc: nope, not just history but very being. The patterns that make up >> the inorganic, don't go away with biological. etc. The idea that >> things can be just one level, is absurd. People have been holding >> this MoQ map upside down. They need to re-orient themselves. > > Dan: >> You mean Robert Pirsig needs to change his MOQ. I disagree. I'm not >> sure where you're getting this from, but it isn't from Lila. There is >> nothing written that says patterns go away, or at least not to my >> knowledge. Could you offer some supporting quotes? >> >> > Jc: I don't need to, you just did. "almost independent of each other" is > the terminology with which I'm taking issue. > I would say, "completely dependent upon", if you're talking about the > relations of the higher to the lower. Dan: Isn't that where the shared evolutionary history comes into play? You said, and I quote: The patterns that make up the inorganic, don't go away with biological. etc. The idea that things can be just one level, is absurd... and I asked, where do you get that idea from? It isn't in Lila so far as I know. I have read nothing about the patterns going away as the levels are concerned, nor have I read how things can be just one level. Again, do you have any supporting quotes for this? > > > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> > >> >> > Lila: >> >> > >> >> > "This classification of patterns is not very original, but the >> >> >> Metaphysics of Quality allows an assertion about them that is >> unusual. >> >> >> It says they are not continuous. 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] >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> Dan comments: >> >> >> I am not sure what your argument is here... the MOQ plainly states >> >> >> each level is built upon the lower one. The higher levels can be seen >> >> >> as in opposition to the lower levels... what they are not, in other >> >> >> words. You seem to have worked out the discrete nature of the levels >> >> >> for yourself here. >> > >> > Jc: no, not by any normal definition of what discrete mean. discrete >> > means first of all, independent >> >> Dan: >> >> Discrete >> [dih-skreet] >> adjective >> 1. apart or detached from others; separate; distinct: six discrete parts. >> 2. consisting of or characterized by distinct or individual parts; >> discontinuous. >> >> Dan comments: >> Look at a motorcycle. It is composed of discrete parts yet each part >> must function as designed or the motorcycle will not operate. You seem >> to be saying that once I engage the starter motor on my motorcycle, >> the rest of the machine disappears. That doesn't stand to reason. Nor >> does your argument about the patterns hold any water. >> >> > Jc: First off, no part of a motorcycle is discrete. Every part has a role > in the function of a whole and thus is dependent upon other parts > (non-discretion) > Second, nothing in nature is discontinuous. Therefore nothing in reality > is discontinuous. All that is, is based upon relation to a whole. The > word "discrete" doesn't apply to anything in reality. It only has a > mathematical meaning that isn't relevant to actual experience. Dan: So you are saying that all the parts on a motorcycle are one continuous mass. Gotta disagree with that. I've torn down bikes and I can swear to the fact that they are definitely made up of discrete parts. You almost seem to be going out of your way here to argue a point that is really unassailable. Please see #2 definition of 'discrete' which was taken from dictionary.com. > > > > >> > JC: >> > and it's impossible for any upper >> > level to exist, without the continual support and existence of the >> > lower. Libraries don't exist without cultures to create them and >> > social patterns of celebrity. Neither can societies exist without >> > biological patterning. There is no way any upper level can be >> > independent from any lower. These patterns build upon lower patterns. >> > they don't eliminate them. >> >> Dan: >> What you have done is taken a word out of context... discrete.. and >> used it in a way it was never intended to be used to substantiate your >> argument. Again, can you offer any supporting quotes from Lila to back >> up this assertion? >> >> > Jc: Intended? If the author didn't intend the meaning of a word, then > perhaps he shouldn't have used it in the first place. > > I take issue with the term discrete because it implies realism - to be is > to be independent. That's a low-order way of thinking. Dan: Again, you are taking ONE POSSIBLE meaning of the word and using it in an attempt to discredit the MOQ. Anyone can do that. The English language is filled with ambiguity. We as authors use the best word we can find at the moment to fit the meaning we are attempting to convey. On second thought, would a different word be better? Maybe. However, if anyone has ever written anything worthwhile, they know it can always be better. That way of thinking traps many people into never attempting to write at all. They get stuck. We can play the Sunday couch quarterback and pick apart all the subtle nuances in Lila as well as the MOQ, or, we can look at what Robert Pirsig is saying and make an attempt to understand. You seem to prefer the former while I prefer the latter. > > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Jc: I am working out the dependencies of the levels - the exact >> opposite >> >> > of their discretion. >> >> > >> >> > I think I understand what Pirsig was aiming at - the fact that when a >> jump >> >> > in levels occurs, entire new harmonies and purposes occur. >> >> > But to my thinking it's like a symphony that creating new rhythms out >> of >> >> > the old, still include the old while developing into more. >> >> > Intellectual patterns depend upon a biological brain. Intellect >> cannot be >> >> > shown to exist outside of a biological brain, unless you believe in >> angels >> >> > and ghosts. >> >> >> >> Dan: >> >> Well, again, the levels share an evolutionary history. The brain >> >> couldn't exist unless certain molecules evolved in order to sustain >> >> life. Social quality patterns couldn't exist unless biological >> >> patterns evolved in order to sustain them. Intellectual quality >> >> patterns couldn't exist unless social patterns evolved to sustain >> >> them. >> >> >> >> That doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusion the levels are not >> >> discrete, however. They have each gone off on an evolutionary journey >> >> of their own that is often opposed to the lower levels. >> >> >> > >> > Jc: Please examine that more carefully. Not that Pirsig said it, but >> > if it's actually true. In what way, opposed? Is intellect ever >> > opposes to society as a whole? >> >> Dan: >> Again, you are taking words out of context here. Social patterns do >> not pertain to a society of biological individuals. They pertain to >> the relationships. > > > Jc: Relationship between what and what? Biological beings, is the only > possible answer. Dan: The social level emerges from the biological level. I'm pretty sure we agree on that. But that doesn't mean social patterns are composed of biological patterns. > > Dan: > > >> So yes, intellectual patterns often oppose social >> patterns... the hippie revolution, the beat generation, the >> intellectuals who opposed Victorian social patterns... the list could >> go on and on. >> >> > Jc: Those were social movements oriented toward different values than > other social movements. > Everything that is a "movement" is a social movement reacting to a former > social movement. > Pure intellect is a myth, if you mean by pure, sans society, sans biology, > sans inorgania. > If you understand as I do, that all upper levels contain the lower, then it > becomes more obvious that differing ideas generate differing societies Dan: I remember a Zen story about a group of monks traveling from one city to another. They stopped for the night near an enormous boulder. As they sat eating their supper, one monk asked another: Is that boulder really there? Or is it in your head? The other monk thought about it for a minute and replied: The boulder is in my head. The first monk said: Your head must be very heavy to carry around. >JC: > and > thus its asinine to call any pattern of people, "intellectual" alone Dan: I'm fairly certain we've been down this path before. There is no such thing as a pattern of people. People are made up of all four levels plus Dynamic Quality. > JC: > and > the problem the MoQ went out to solve - which society is more moral than > others - becomes asinine. Why OURS, of course. What's the difference > between that answer and the ones generated by every other society? Dan: I'm pretty sure one of the central theses of Lila is that intellectually based cultures are superior to socially or biologically based cultures. Ours is not necessarily intellectually based, from what I can see. If it was, we wouldn't be spending trillions of dollars on useless wars in far off places while our infrastructure at home is falling apart around our ears. >JC: > I don't give a shit about any intellectual pattern, that is not also, good > at social, biological and inorganic organization. That's was James problem > with intellect, and despite dmb's protestations, it's the same kind I'm > opposing here. Intellect that is "only in your head" That's the SOM kind > of intellect and I don't like it. You wanna call me anti-intellectual for > that? be my guesssssst. Dan: If we look at the characters in Lila as representations of the levels, we see that Phaedrus the intellectual is divorced from Rigel the social as well as Lila the biological. They are all opposed to one another on moral grounds. >JC: > But that's not addressing you, Dan. You've not called me that. > > Nor am I anti-Pirsig. I think Pirsig's insights were perfect, and the > world he fought against, needed opposition. I don't think his fight then, > is quite as relevant now, but that's the nature of the victory biz. When > you win in the end, against your enemies then, your words no long apply > because the world changes. It's not that you should have said something > else, then. It's that you should expand on your thought, now. Times > change. And they change inresponse to us, when we succeed - sell millions > of copies. Mainly to philosophers and academicians. That's going to have > an effect. Right? Thus no true author should ever have his words > statified. Nothing is a bigger lie, than the absolutely static. If the > MoQ, ever becomes truly static, it will be dead. Dan: If there are indeed perfect insights, then no insight can ever be better. You seem to be saying we are so much more evolved now than we were twenty some years ago but I don't see that at all. Pick up a newspaper. Nothing has changed. Wars are still being fought in every corner of the globe, people are being shot and killed daily, and there are still religious moralizers on every corner spouting nonsense and telling everyone how much better off they'd be if only they'd wise up and follow the word of their one and only true god... oh... that and send money...after all, heaven ain't free. I don't think anyone -- least of all me -- is saying we need to keep the MOQ static. The fact is that it is a collection of static intellectual quality patterns and nothing you or anyone else can do will change that. We either work at understanding it, or we don't. Once we understand it, then perhaps we can offer suggestions to make it better. But to kick the rungs out from under it hardly seems the way to go about it. > > > >> JC: >> > then that's not intellect, its a >> > sociopathic pattern. Caring intellectuals are bothered by problems in >> > society - not the idea of society itself. So does it makes sense, the >> > statement - the 4th level is opposed to the 3rd? >> >> Dan: >> This is why precision is so important in these discussions. Look at >> your sentence... caring intellectuals... society... these terms are >> fine to use in a general discussion but when it comes to the MOQ, they >> are not so fine... they are in fact misleading. Please go back and >> re-read the quote I offered earlier from Lila from the beginning of >> chapter 12. >> >> > > Jc: Hey! I thought you said philosophy was boring! Dan: I didn't actually say that. I said it tends to put me to sleep. Which it does. >JC: > Now you're seeking to clarify concepts. That's what philosophy is. How > deep do you want me to go? Dan: I am not seeking to clarify... I am asking you to use terms with the precision the MOQ demands. I get the distinct impression we are not talking about the MOQ at all but rather subject and object metaphysics. > JC: > Caring intellectuals = those individuals who are oriented toward the 4th as > the noblest goal. Dan: You are using the term 'caring intellectual' in ways not comporting to the MOQ. Intellectual quality patterns are not biological individuals. The intellectual level may be represented by individuals and their actions, however. > JC: > Society = collection of biological beings, bound by a common code - > culture, language, assumptions about reality and being. Dan: No! Social patterns ARE NOT collections of biological individuals! Not in the MOQ, anyway. To continue down this path is nonsense. If you want to develop your own insights into philosophy, fine. But don't call it the MOQ. Call it something else. > JC: > Tell me how using the common understanding of things, the most immediate > experience I can express conceptually, can possibly be misleading? Dan: No one can express immediate experience. We express symbolic representations of experience, not experience itself. > JC: > Do you > mean I'm distracting you from the purity of interpreted dogmatic assertions > by authority? Dan: If I thought that I wouldn't spend my time here. > JC: > Or do my mean that my assertions and arguments match up to > my conclusions because they are formed by my conclusions? Dan: I mean just what I said: Precision is important. > JC: > I assure you > that is not the case. My issues witht the offician MOQ, evolved out of > years of dialogue. I've heard a lot of support for the MOQ as it is > written, but little recognition of the dynamic nature of this unique > metaphysical position. Dan: Okay... now is your chance. Tell me what you recognize about the dynamic nature of the MOQ. Thank you, 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
