Re: MD The Education System

2001-06-29 Thread marco

or senescence? Generally, the older we get, the more we appreciate static Quality (or, 
on the other hand, we fear DQ).   Maybe we can have wisdom just for one moment, 
somewhere in the middle of our life...  when Dynamic enthousiasm and static prudence 
are in perfect armony.  

Marco

Midway on our life's journey, I found myself
In dark woods, the right road lost. 

Dante Alighieri - The Divine Comedy - Incipit 



 all
 
 The other gradual shift you see from ZMM to Lila is one that normally
 occurs in most humans during the aging process from a more liberal to a
 more conservative PoV. Sometimes its called wisdom. But it ain't
 necessarily so. Or is it?
 
 3WD
 
 




MOQ.ORG  - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html




Re: MD The Education System

2001-06-28 Thread SQUONKSTAIL

Hello Brian,
Nice to meet you.

Am not sure if i have any insights, but let's see what we can fish for? :-)


In a message dated 6/28/01 8:35:22 PM GMT Daylight Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 Subj: MD The Education System
 Date:  6/28/01 8:35:22 PM GMT Daylight Time
 From:  [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian Taylor)
 Sender:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Reply-to:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
 Pirsig's former self in ZMM, Phaedrus, conducts an experiment while teaching 
 on getting rid of the whole degree-and-grading system. This system is 
 intriguing, and appears to work very well, however it exists independent of 
 the world, in a little vacuum, which wouldn't ever work.




Phaedrus is a fictional character.
Pirsig is not Phaedrus in a literal sense; Phaedrus is a device to whisper in 
the readers' ear those things which cannot be said by the narrator of ZMM.
I think i have that about right?

However, there are autobiographical elements in ZMM.
 



 Let's presume that we want to incorporate his idea of abolishing grades and 
 degrees from education so students are getting an education for purely 
 education's sake. With no degrees, a company will not know of any 
 credentials with which to discriminate prospective employees. They will 
 have no idea of which graduates are better than any other in a particular 
 field as there aren't any degrees to certify that a student has completed 
 some minimum requirements to show that they would be semi-proficient in 
 their field of study. Therefore, the company situation would have to be 
 revaluated as well. If companies were no longer interested solely in making 
 a profit, they would not be conversely solely interested in getting the best 
 people to do the best work for them. They would be free to hire whomever, 
 and although their product at the time immediately at the hire of said 
 person might not be at the same Quality level, the new employee would be 
 able to further their education in that field, and eventually help the 
 company with more by having both educational background and practical 
 experience in that field. The company and the individual would both benefit. 
 But in order for a company to be no longer interested in profit, the entire 
 issue of money itself must be dealt with. My immediate response is to 
 abolish the idea of money in some fashion. So that is basically the end of 
 my train of thought on this subject.




Phew!
I like the idea of getting shut of dosh.
Anarchists would no doubt agree with this!?
If we adopted mentoring in our educational system, pupils could be 
recommended in an socio-academic context?
This goes for talented artists, musicians, actors, and all the stuff that 
potentially may not, 'Pay.' But in a society without money, that would be OK, 
no?
Money and mentors are both social patterns. Replace money with a damn good 
mentor and as long as biological patterns are taken care of?
Maybe that is a bit daft?
 



 However, in Lila, Pirsig states that money and fame are integral parts of 
 society and of Quality as we know it. So what resolution is there to this 
 dilemma?
 



Fame = status.
If everyone had the opportunity to express themselves and explore quality 
free from the shackles of serving an economic system, then hopefully everyone 
would find their own level of fame within their sincerely held field of 
delight?
Hey! Don't be denied!




 It seems that somewhere in between ZMM and Lila there is a jump made from 
 Quality to Dynamic Quality. I accepted it when it was first presented, but 
 upon looking back and seeing how the idea of DQ has evolved, something seems 
 a bit off. Is all Quality Dynamic? Is it good for things to change at all? 
 Since DQ is the highest order of quality, anything that changes is good, no 
 matter what it is changing into or towards??




DQ is undifferentiated reality.
Static patterns are what you value.
Lila is a metaphysics, and therefore, as such, has to differentiate quality 
into these two halves.
If you like metaphysics then Lila's MOQ has plenty of philosophy to chew on.
If you like unpatterned reality, forget the MOQ! ;)

When DQ disrupts static patterns, the change may not be for the better.
DQ will, whenever it gets the chance, try to get to work. But, too much of it 
can blow your intellect haywire! (Or any static pattern.)
 



 This confusion for me is at the root of the previous problem, as it seems 
 Pirsig first arrived at Quality in ZMM, then there were many transformations 
 and crystallisation, and then wrote Lila, after those changes had taken 
 place. I just sense a gap of some sort, that I haven't resolved for myself 
 yet.
 
 Can anyone offer any insight?




Lila's MOQ, it seems to me, is a very good way of organising ones experiences.
One may organise ones experiences as quality events?
The bottom line is that subjects and objects are an illusion.
Reason has got us tricked into thinking in terms of a fractured and 
splintered 

Re: MD The Education System

2001-06-28 Thread Matt the Amazing Technicolor Dream Coat

Ahem, (clunk, clunk), is this thing on?

Oh! It is.

Well, (cough), it's been awhile and, while I don't have any great
insights, I thought I might take a stab at some of your (Brian) Quality
questions. Mainly just to stretch and make sure I don't sprain
anything.

Brain wrote:

It seems that somewhere in between ZMM and Lila there is a jump made
from 
Quality to Dynamic Quality. I accepted it when it was first
presented, but 
upon looking back and seeing how the idea of DQ has evolved,
something seems 
a bit off. Is all Quality Dynamic? Is it good for things to change at
all? 
Since DQ is the highest order of quality, anything that changes is
good, no 
matter what it is changing into or towards??

As far as I can tell there isn't a jump from Q to DQ per se.
Re-reading ZMM again at the moment has me seeing several parallels
between the two books. Some obvious, some not.

One: Quality is the same in both books. It hasn't changed.
Pirsig's excitement and argument has, though. The first book was
the argument for Quality. Lila was the argument for a
Dynamic/static division. As he says, ...sooner or later he
was going to have to stop carping about how bad subject-object
metaphysics was and say something positive for a change.

Two: if you look closely in ZMM you'll see Pirsig favoring romantic
Quality over classical Quality. It's subtle and I certainly didn't
pick it up until after reading Lila and understanding more about where he
was going to go with Quality. I think the reason was that Pirsig
himself favored romantic Quality, but not for any metaphysical reason as
far as he could tell. It was fairly obvious to everyone that you
needed both romantic and classical. Therefore it just got hinted
at. 

In Lila it's pretty obvious that he favors Dynamic Quality. He has
to restrain himself most times to not come out and say No one needs
to be static! Just be Dynamic! He knows it's not true
and I think he makes a point on several occasions to make it plainly
obvious to the reader that, though DQ is better, it is vitally important
to have static and Dynamic.

And I think his new split, in particular, counters Rigel (in chapter
6). Romantic Quality is what the Hippies were doing. Pirsig
likes the Hippies, he likes the rebels of the sixties. But deep
down he also knows that they weren't quite on the right track.
Pirsig wants to rock the establishment, but in a good way. Rigel
was there to hammer down the point that the Hippies, many times, didn't
rock in a good way. With his new Dynamic/static split
Pirsig could go back to the Hippies and tell them where they had gone
wrong. Reject social and intellectual patterns. Fine.
But leave patterns completely, don't go to biological patterns. Go
to Dynamic Quality. Pirsig could then defend himself against Rigel
and still rock the Casba.

So, Brian, to answer your questions specifically:

No, not all Quality is Dynamic.

It is good for things to change.

No, not all change is good. The Hippie change, for instance, wasn't
good. They rocked, but had only drug addiction to latch onto.
That, of course, devolved into the coke addictions of the 70's and
80's.

So when you rock ... just make sure you're Dynamic.

Thank you, thank you very much,

Matt


Re: MD The Education System

2001-06-28 Thread 3dwavedave

all

The other gradual shift you see from ZMM to Lila is one that normally
occurs in most humans during the aging process from a more liberal to a
more conservative PoV. Sometimes its called wisdom. But it ain't
necessarily so. Or is it?

3WD


MOQ.ORG  - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html