From: Chuck Roghair (ctr@pacificpartssales.com)
Date: Tue Jan 18 2005 - 21:49:20 GMT
Matt, DMB, et al.,
I've enjoyed this exchange from the sidelines thus far, but I couldn't
resist Matt's list of questions so I hope no one minds that I took a crack
at 'em. I omitted some at the end as I clobbered by redundancy by then.
I'd appreciate any comment, so as to compare my interpretation of such
matters with anyone here who is interested.
Some Questions:
Matt:
"How do you know capitalism is more Dynamic than communism?" (Jan 9)
Chuck:
I don't. "Capitalism" and "communism" are conceptual systems. I don't know
that one is more Dynamic than the other intrinsically or in and of itself.
If you want to use specific examples, say present-day American Capitalism v.
present day Chinese Communism, if we agreed that those specific systems were
in fact examples of capitalism and communism, than I might give you an
answer backed-up with specific examples and points on fact. The theories
themselves, on paper, I suspect, they lack any Dynamic Quality. In other
words, such theoretical sytems are static until practiced, at which time
they acquire some Dynamic Quality, which, in turn would be constantly
fluctuating, I suspect
Matt:
"How do we know when we are being Dynamic? How do we know when we are
following Dynamic Quality and not static patterns? How do we verify it?"
(Jan 11, "Reply to DMB")
Chuck:
We discussed "the sweet spot" some time ago around here. I prefer "being in
the zone," but I think both turns-of-phrase refer to pure Dynamic Quality,
being in absence of thinking. Have never had that experience? Do you know
to what phenomenon they refer? That's being Dynamic.
Matt:
"If unmediated reality is better than mediated reality, then how do we know
when we are apprehending unmediated reality?"
Chuck:
This is the same as the Dynamic Quality question. I think, though I'm not
sure, that Dynamic Quality is like pornography; I can't define it, but I
know it when I see it.
Matt:
"How do we know when we are Dynamic, when we are following Dynamic Quality?"
Chuck:
See Above.
"How do you establish criteria for determining which is which, criteria that
will satisfy the skeptic?"
Chuck:
I think one must determine this on a moment-by-moment basis. Phaedrus made
a list in ZMM of criteria for a quality writing as it pertains to the
English essay/paper though I don't have it in front of me at the moment.
Pirsig's list of English papers that exemplified Dynamic Quality.
Matt:
"Why does Pirsig not need to answer the skeptic when the determination of
good and evil, better and worse, hinges on distinguishing between static
patterns and Dynamic Quality?" (Jan 11, "Reply to Paul")
Chuck:
Because the determination of good and evil, better and worse does not hinge
on anyone's ability to distinguish between "static patterns" and "Dynamic
Quality."
Are you referring to the terms? If so, obviously those moral distinctions
don't hinge on any such determination. To claim so would mean that anyone
who has no knowledge of Pirsig's work would be unable to make this
determination.
Regardless, the determination of good and evil, better and worse, hinges on
choosing what is best at the moment and that is Dynamic Quality.
Matt:
"How do you know a "simple, unambiguous and direct" [Dynamic] response is
better than a "complex, ambiguous and indirect" [static] one?"
Chuck:
Are you serious? What's the point of communication, after all? Find the
answer within the question.
Maybe I missed the point of this one.
Matt:
"Can we look at a philosophical proposition and instantaneously know whether
it is good or not? Isn't this what Pirsig's implying, that the Dynamic
insight is the one immediately in front of you [knowledge by acquaintance]?"
Chuck:
That depends on one's experience or baseline, specifically, background of
philosophy or exposure to such ways of thinking.
Matt:
"How do we know this immediate flash of insight is leading us aright and not
afoul?"
Chuck:
If it is pure, it is aright. The trick is recognizing real insight or the
purely Dynamic and, again, that depends on one's experience.
Matt:
"How do we know our immediate flash of insight is better and not
degenerate?"
Chuck:
See answer directly above.
Matt:
"How do you know the way you've 'described' Dynamic Quality is the right
way?"
Chuck:
I don't.
Matt:
"I think one other way of putting my difficulties are in response to Dan's
misguided reply: 'To answer Matt's question: The best way I know of is to
ask oneself, is this a Quality path I am on? Only you will know the answer
(kenntnis). If the answer is no, then go a better way.'
Okay, so I ask myself, "Am I on a Quality path? Is my cross-examination of
Pirsig's philosophy going in the right direction? Am I really detecting an
appearance/reality distinction unbeknownst to Pirsig or his mainline
interpreters?"
Chuck:
The question is misguided, not the answer. How well does Dan actually know
you? I think Dan's answer is the only one possible to such a question.
Regarding the "appearance/reality distinction," I don't see a problem there.
Doesn't Pirsig acknowledge this distinction as being illusionary, but an
illusion we're forced to cope with? I recall something along the line of
Voluntaristic Idealism or Axiological Idealism Schopenhauer-style? I'm not
sure exactly where or even which text (ZMM or LILA) and I'm too tired to dig
for it now.
I think the post perception reality includes that distinction, or something
akin to it.
Of course, I may be wrong.
Matt:
Answer: "Oh yeah, absolutely."
How does one respond to that?"
Chuck:
There you go.
Best regards,
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: [mailto: ]
On Behalf Of Matt Kundert
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 1:45 PM
To:
Subject: RE: MD Further comments to Matt
Matt said some time earlier somewhere:
If you do this, (deny the existence of an appearance/reality distinction in
Pirsig) the question that I then want answered is: Why do we need a
mediated/unmediated distinction? What part does it play, what work does it
do? ...But what I want to know is: _why doesn't this create an
appearance/reality distinction?_
DMB said:
I think I understand your question here. If I may rephrase, you're asking if
we deny SOM in Pirsig (the A/R distinction), why do we need the
static/Dynamic split (mediated and unmediated experience)? You're saying
that if we view Pirsig's split as if it were the same as Kant's, then we
have really just created the same problem. Is that about right?
Matt:
No. I'm not asking why you need the static/Dynamic split. I've always
liked the static/Dynamic split. I'm asking "Why do we need a
mediated/unmediated distinction?" More importantly, if you insist on using
a mediated/unmediated experience distinction to characterize the
static/Dynamic split, "_why doesn't this create an appearance/reality
distinction?_"
I understand Pirsig's attack on SOM looks very much like the attack on the
appearance/reality distinction. I understand that the MoQ is supposed to
take the place of SOM. But in Pirsig's explication of the MoQ, using the
distinctions he does, such as that between mediated and unmediated
experience, he very often seems to fall into traditional problems, problems
he's supposedly already gotten rid of. This is the heart and soul of what
I've been saying, really all I've ever said. There seems to be a tension in
Pirsig's writings.
You talk about a cultural blindspot. Here's the kicker: why can't I come
back and claim the same thing about your misunderstanding and blindness to
what I've been saying for two years?
What's more, why don't you ever answer some of the difficult (I would say,
impossible) questions I leave scattered in my posts, questions it would seem
you'd need to be able to answer if you were going to field a
mediated/unmediated distinction?
Some Questions:
"How do you know capitalism is more Dynamic than communism?" (Jan 9)
"How do we know when we are being Dynamic? How do we know when we are
following Dynamic Quality and not static patterns? How do we verify it?"
(Jan 11, "Reply to DMB")
"If unmediated reality is better than mediated reality, then how do we know
when we are apprehending unmediated reality?"
"How do we know when we are Dynamic, when we are following Dynamic Quality?"
"How do you establish criteria for determining which is which, criteria that
will satisfy the skeptic?"
"Why does Pirsig not need to answer the skeptic when the determination of
good and evil, better and worse, hinges on distinguishing between static
patterns and Dynamic Quality?" (Jan 11, "Reply to Paul")
"How do you know a "simple, unambiguous and direct" [Dynamic] response is
better than a "complex, ambiguous and indirect" [static] one?"
"Can we look at a philosophical proposition and instantaneously know whether
it is good or not? Isn't this what Pirsig's implying, that the Dynamic
insight is the one immediately in front of you [knowledge by acquaintance]?"
"How do we know this immediate flash of insight is leading us aright and not
afoul?"
"How do we know our immediate flash of insight is better and not
degenerate?"
"How do you know the way you've 'described' Dynamic Quality is the right
way?"
"How do you know when you are experiencing Dynamic Quality?"
"How do you know whether you are being Dynamic or degenerate?"
"How do you know whether you are following static patterns or being
Dynamic?"
and finally
"I think one other way of putting my difficulties are in response to Dan's
misguided reply: 'To answer Matt's question: The best way I know of is to
ask oneself, is this a Quality path I am on? Only you will know the answer
(kenntnis). If the answer is no, then go a better way.'
Okay, so I ask myself, "Am I on a Quality path? Is my cross-examination of
Pirsig's philosophy going in the right direction? Am I really detecting an
appearance/reality distinction unbeknownst to Pirsig or his mainline
interpreters?"
Answer: "Oh yeah, absolutely."
How does one respond to that?"
Matt
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
hthttp://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries -
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries -
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jan 18 2005 - 23:33:37 GMT