Hi David B., I am late in answering you (all work and no play make Denis a sad boy) but I'll try to clarify myself since I obviously failed to do so (at least in your regard). > Denis: > > I'm not sure how much detail I can go into in this post. > I don't have much time, but there are two major points > where we disagree. > If I read your most recent post correctly, we disagree > about the static/Dynamic split. You seem to be saying it > is just a matter of our perceptions. "Just". Don't we all love this word ? ;) Ever since I read ZMM, I've made a habit of scanning every sentence I fall upon for those little "slip of the tongue", which are far more revealing than anything said or meant. I won't dissect your sentence to show you "how SOMish, and bla bla bla..." (this is too often done, and doesn't solve much anyway) I think you're intelligent enough to do this yourself. But, I'll like to send you back to 'Lila' and the passage where Phaedrus starts laying down the MOQ, the chapter that starts with "he would have to stop harping about how bad SOM was...", etc. (I don't have the book right now, you'll have to look for it, I think it's chapter twenty-something, maybe 23 or 29). The main point of the following discussion it that Quality can't be divided, but must be for intellectual purposes. Distinctions are mystical crap, but unavoidable at the lower level (Intellect). In fact, at this level they are the highest good. Phaedrus here is searching for a new way to divide Quality that would escape the mind/matter, subjective/objective traps of SOM. And he INVENTS one. OK, it feels like it's a discovery, Zuni brujo and all this, but here is a moment of pure creativity. The static/dynamic split explains a lot, and is more inclusive, and allows to see the old paradigm under a new angle, but it is nevertheless another intellectual distinction. Nothing else. Staticism and Dynamism don't exist in an ideal world somewhere, or in a mystic world. They exist in the Intellect. They are intellectual patterns of value. In my own linguo, it is a new intellectual trick (I use this word is the sense that learning to walk on your hand is a trick). It is useful, good and beautiful, but it's not the real thing. Don't confuse words and reality. In this forum, people seem to range from those who preferred ZMM (I suppose I'd put John B. in this, but he is free to disagree) and those who preferred 'Lila' (like you I think). Those who preferred ZMM often think that Pirsig botched a perfectly good thing when he invented the MOQ on top of Quality, and those who preferred 'Lila' often forget ZMM, or casually dismiss it as a 'error of youth' kind of thing. I disagree with both. This Static/Dynamic split is a trick and it elicit two kind of answers (from Pirsig's "fans", at least) : 1. Oh no... Not *another* one ! I thought we had gotten rid of all this "classifying crap" and he pushes us back in it... what a loser... 2. Oh GREAT !!! I knew he wouldn't leave us there with this Undefined Source of All Things s**t ! Look how beautiful is this new metaphysics ! How it explains everything, defines and expands on knowledge. This is just soooo good ! [Of course this illustration is far-fetched and extreme, but you get the meaning. Don't jump on me because I'm caricaturing, it's on purpose. Many people span the gap, but some are being closer to an extreme or the other. You and Platt seem to be in the Lila-only camp.] What I mean by this is that either people dig the notion of undefined Quality, or they dig the MOQ, its divisions, levels and general complexity. Very often, they dismiss the other side as irrelevant. But neither side is irrelevant for comprehension of the MOQ. If you don't get Quality, the MOQ is useless and static. If you don't get the MOQ, you're back at the cave age (or worse, with SOM ;). You need both. You need Quality because Quality is the "eraser" part of the MOQ pen. Just like experimentation allows one to re-examine scientific hypothesis, to test their validity, Quality reminds us that our models are just that : models. They're useful, close to experience and all that, but they're only models. The most important facet of the MOQ is that, unlike SOM science and culture, it is very willing to examine its foundations and reject them if need be (ie. if something better comes forward). Even the static/dynamic split is subject to that, even if this *really* is the basis of the MOQ. Rejecting it would need a VERY good replacement candidate, but in theory it is possible. You made your point about rejecting the MOQ for "enlightenment", so I won't beat that horse. Besides, I completely agree (well, I think. I haven't read all your posts yet. You write too much... ;^). > And I think you go way > too far with the concept of "many truths". Together they have the effect of > saying that reality is just in our heads AND the truth is just whatever we > like. What a mess! Intellectual representation of reality *is* just in our heads, and Quality is everywhere (even in our heads, of course). You seem to have great problems with the notion that our models might "miss the point" somehow... why is that ? Of course, we judge our models by how close they come to pre-intellectual experience, how "good" they feel, how "true" they seem (at the intellectual level those two sentences have the same meaning). But they still fall short of Quality. Despite what you think, I don't go too far, I just (notice the bias ?) push a little too hard against your preconceptions, it would seem. "Many truths" for me means to be willing to put everything in question, and to trust my feelings and judgment when it comes to make a decision, or to take a stand. This, I believe, is the core of the MOQ's teachings. There is no such thing as a dogmatist MOQist, but this doesn't mean he won't stand up for what he likes/believes. Reality is Quality, therefore it isn't just in our head, and truth is what we like (and forget that stupid "just"), what we believe is true (in the MOQ sense of having intellectual quality). My explanations are true if they make sense, if they are clear, if they can be expanded to englobe a variety of phenomena, and most important : they are true if you like them. If you think/feel they have a high intellectual value. I mean, if you don't, you're going to ignore them anyway. So why make a distinction, after all ?... And of course, then I get to call you a static bonehead, so this way everyone's happy, no ? :) [Don't worry, I won't.] > > I'll assume that you've read my most recent efforts, one on each forum, and > not repeat myself. But I'll add to the ideas there and say simply; The MOQ > does not undo our intellectual heritage, throw away the progress of > civilization or abandon the fruits of science. Well said. I hope you haven't thought I was proposing that. I'm no Luddite. > It transcends those things, > which necessarily means that ideas about subjects and objects are not > replaced with undifferentiated nothingness or any other gooey non-sense. No > way. As *I* understood it, S/O where supposed to be discared in favor of SQ/DQ. The S/O division had become an old and mistaken view of the universe, that impeded our comprehension of our place in it. The beautiful thing about the MOQ is that WE DON'T NEED SUBJECTS AND OBJECTS ANYMORE. An "objective" view doesn't exist, but we can keep our science anyway. It just becomes part of the knowledge we keep about the lower two levels. "Truth" is a hoax, but we can still judge the quality of explanations. Under the MOQ this doesn't invalidate them. Even experimentation gets its validation : if the models are close to experience, then they have quality. In a way, science is a very refined form of storytelling, but this should tell us something about the power of stories instead of making us skeptic about science. What the stories affect depends on what the stories are about. Does anyone understand this ? > Subjects and objects and the world and all our science in enfolded and > incorporated into a larger view. The MOQ is at the front edge of that moving > train, but that isn't supposed to destroy the next car back. Denis, you > can't ignore prior distinctions in the name of the MOQ. But you could use > the MOQ to re-interpet and further clarify those old distinctions. The MOQ > is better than SOM because its more inclusive, it explains more, but that > doesn't mean we simply adopt all the views that are opposite of the SOM, we > just add to it. See? I see, but I hope you don't expect us to keep all the crap in the name of "being more inclusive". There is a lot of dead weight in SOM, and it'll drag us down if we don't stear clear. We have to keep what we like, what feels useful and good, and discar what we don't, or at least adapt it to our views. The self is one such notion. You've made clear that we had to be careful about not throwing the baby out with the water, but the opposite is also true. We have to be careful about what we let in. On the other end, I have a problem with "we just add to it" (J word notwithstanding). You might want one day to read the fantastic essay written by Paul Feyerabend tittled 'Against Method'. In his critic of Imre Lakatos' "scientific paradigm revolutions" he explicitely states that when a paradigm change occurs in science, often you cannot compare the two because a lot of the old problems don't make sense anymore in the new one. There is no logical connections between them, because the axioms themselves change. For example, the weight of the ether became a non-question after Einstein. For me, the same applies to the questions about freedom and will. The lines don't always get more numerous. Sometimes the old ones get redrawn, as well. I think this should be most obvious in the upper two levels. So why keep outdated notions about them ? The way we see society and intelligence has to change, or the MOQ is there for nothing. Metaphysics, truth and morality are in those fields. Let's see what has changed since the MOQ came in. > > The MOQ doesn't erase lines, it draws new ones. See? > > Out of time for now, but if you're actually interested I'll be happy to > spend more later, DMB And I'll happy to debate with you again. Too long we haven't done it, if you want my opinion.. ;) Be good Denis _______________________________________________________ Vendez tout... aux ench�res - http://www.caraplazza.com
