I think I am near to this Dynamic Quality thing in
spirit. It is very close to the Heidegger/Derrida
tradition. Heidegger defines truth as revelation
(aletheia), not a Subject/Object verification thing,
and Being as what would be Quality. Heidegger
basically says people are "fields." Nietzsche/Sartre
tradition is more about the will to dominate the
objects. Derrida takes on where Heidegger left off,
and I suppose introduces the "Dynamic" into DQ (as in
chocolate covered cones, just kidding). Deconstruction
is the dynamic that happens, and Derrida talks about
"frozen" dyads that he wants to decenter and let the
marginal flow. He also gives a similar explanation as
Pirsig about how the mistake was made: for Derrida,
valuing of presence led to dualities, and for Pirsig,
I can't remember but it's along the same lines. Both
are REVOLUTIONARY. I would also say Kierkegaard's
notion of faith is very close to the belief in the
Quality.
But I have a few concerns.
I don't like and I don't understand this whole "level"
talk. It's very jargonistic. I have to know the 4
levels and I have to know what evolution levels are.
It's seems so flimsy in concept after the brilliant
stroke of DQ. It's seems to me based in "evolution"
and the notion of higher and lower forms. I understand
how MOQ dissolves SOM but then it seems weak to use
this simplistic 4 category analysis system to explain
things away. It seems like Pirsig makes a brilliant
stroke and then loses his scholarship in a frenzy of
easy all encompassing fervor. It uses a Static system
after saying that life is dynamic.
That is why I like deconstruction better. In academe
sure there is jargon. But, everyone can do it.
Everyone can be dynamic, just as I made the dairy
queen joke above. everyone deconstructs, whether it is
humor or whatever. Derrida is tempted to make a system
and resists, whereas Pirsig does not seem to resist
this temptation. I think this is a fatal flaw, because
to me it reeks of "gurudom". I, Pirsig, have made the
final Hegelian system. Pirsig is kind in making
attributions to James and other philosophers. But I
sense a haughtiness in him and his writing even. His
writing is very prideful, as if he is giving dictums
(I read with relish his mistake about the Eskimo words
for ice). That is why I think LILA is less successful,
it didn't have the peace or sense of wonder that ZAMM
had. It's a lecture of a haughty learned man. Derrida
makes the effort to "be" his philosophy, whereas
Pirsig resorts back to subject/object world in
dictating his grand plan.
Those are my feelings. I again am open to debate about
it. Just trying to express.
Angus
--- Rob D <8rjd1@qlink.queensu.ca> wrote:
> Exactly Angus,
> Quality, because it is a noun, is neither defined
> as in something "only in
> your mind" (a judgment call) or some property of
> objects in the world like
> length or height (a good car or a better car).
> Quality itself is our
> experience of reality, or in a sense, we experience
> the quality of reality.
> Think of it this way, pain is the biological level
> equivalent of low
> quality, why does every experience seem a little
> different when you're in
> pain. Even ice cream doesn't taste as good, it's the
> low quality that we
> experience that makes the difference.
> Rob
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
> [mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]On Behalf Of
> Angus Guschwan
> Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 12:24 AM
> To: moq_discuss@moq.org
> Subject: RE: MD RE: quality is good
>
>
> Last paragraph of LILA says that "good" as a noun is
> the closest one sentence for defining MOQ. Pshaw,
> I'm
> even using the acronyms now.
>
> Angus.
>
> --- Rob D <8rjd1@qlink.queensu.ca> wrote:
> > Hey Bo and all,
> > Bo, you wrote:
> >
> > >But from this to start equating Quality with the
> > good of "God in
> > >Heaven" leaves it wide open up for arguments of
> the
> > Angus kind.
> >
> > I see "good" as the social static level
> > interpretation of quality. To "do
> > good" is to help your brother in need, walk that
> old
> > lady across the street,
> > tell the truth, go to church, defend your country,
> > be a hard working fine
> > upstanding citizen, and basically contribute to
> the
> > well-being of society.
> > The social level was "the static level" for so
> long,
> > though, that the word
> > has some mystical meaning greater than just
> social,
> > but because of the
> > social implications of "good" I think that one
> > should definitely not define
> > quality as good.
> > I hope my meaning wasn't misinterpreted by that
> > last part of my post. I
> > meant it as quality at the root and good and God
> > being two interpretations,
> > close in meaning, but not quite quality. I did not
> > in any way intend for
> > people to define quality as good, although I will
> > definitely argue that they
> > are close.
> > I actually think that the idea of "good" is a
> > really good way of
> > introducing someone (who has an open mind) to MOQ,
> > because the word "good"
> > is accepted, and because you can actually use good
> > in replacement of quality
> > when dealing with objective things(a good car,
> > scientific theory,
> > evolutionary adaption)or subjective things(a good
> > painting, wine, movie,
> > etc.). Just a thought for those of you who want to
> > "light the way" for
> > others.
> >
> > Rob
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
> > [mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]On Behalf Of
> > skutvik@online.no
> > Sent: Friday, September 28, 2001 4:24 AM
> > To: moq_discuss@moq.org
> > Subject: MD RE: quality is good
> >
> >
> > Hi MD.
> > When reading Angus' messages I thought: "Here's
> > what you get
> > when starting on the path of equating Quality with
> > "love/goodness"
> > ....of SOM! This discussion necessarily had to
> > revert to the social
> > level of emotions for a while after the terrorist
> > attacks, but when
> > starting to climb the Q-ladder it's not enough to
> > stop at SOM-
> > intellect, but go all the way up to the
> > MoQ-intellect.
> >
> > No offense, but Angus' message I don't care for
> > commenting, he
> > has not the least inkling of what the MoQ is about
> > ... but may be a
> > staunch moqist the moment he understands. From his
> > present
> > point of view he may even be right in relegating
> > "love" to the limbic
> > (emotional) brain. A word for Robert D. who, by
> > referring to
> > Nietszche, started Tanya on the love thread. He
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Who truly believes that "God is Dead" though?
> Only
> > Nietzsche
> > > it would
> > > seem, for God is very much alive in the minds of
> > even the most
> > > intellectual people of this world. SOM is a
> > pattern that has no good
> > > or evil, no morality within it
> >
> > Right. SOM/Intellect puts both morality and its
> > warrantor God in its
> > subjective realm.
> >
> > > yet morality persists. Nietzsche saw
> > > the death of the social level God, a God which
> > gave the social level
> > > it's authority and morals, replaced by the
> > intellectual level, a level
> > > with no authority greater than the many minds
> that
> > believe in it.
> >
> > Maybe he had some kind of Phaedrus experience (I
> > tend to believe
> > so), but did not "return" with any system similar
> to
> > the MoQ
> >
> > > He
> > > predicted the death of the social level, but
> > although weakened, it
> > > still survives. What he failed to see was the
> > Metaphysics of Quality,
> > > and how the social level fits into the big
> > picture.
> >
> > Exactly ...had he just known any Q-levels.
> >
> > > God has changed
> > > though, the subject-object definition of it has
> > put it in a box where
> > > it doesn't belong. Have you ever wondered what
> the
> > saying "God is
> > > good" really means? The words are so so close
> that
> > they could have the
> > > same root. Could it not be a definition?
> Quality.
> > If quality is a
> > > genuine part of reality one would have to be
> > totally blind not to see
> > > it in the levels other than as "truth", it's
> > intellectual
> > > interpretation. That's why it persists, because
> it
> > exists. So
> > > Nietzsche was both wrong and right, because
> > although the intellectual
> > > level doesn't require a God, definer of morals,
> it
> > never really did
> > > die when the intellectual level took over. And
> > "God has been
> > > resurrected by MOQ" anyway.
> >
> > I find this in accordance with my own ideas.
> Earlier
> > I have pursued
> > an idea that what took place in Greece (the birth
> of
> > subject/object
> > metaphysics) had a counterpart in the Middle East
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Listen to your Yahoo! Mail messages from any phone.
http://phone.yahoo.com
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:33 BST