From: Ron Winchester (phaedruswolff@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed Jan 19 2005 - 03:04:50 GMT
Hi Chuck, dmb, Matt, and all,
Just my humble opinion, but you know Quality. No one can tell you what
Quality is, and looking for someone to do so can only fog your vision of
what Quality is. Pirsig does not offer the 'Ready-made', Hand-me-down'
philsophy, as if he did, it would not be your philosophy. If it is not your
philosophy, but only what you read from others, then there is no way of
knowing what a Quality decision is when the time comes to make it.
If you depend on someone else to tell you what Quality is, would you not put
yourself in the same position as the followers of Jones? Simply stated;
"Don't drink the koolaid." - Think for yourself.
It seems simple to me, but then again, I am only a simple man.
Wolff
>From: "Chuck Roghair" < >
>Reply-To:
>To: < >
>Subject: RE: MD Further comments to Matt
>Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 13:49:20 -0800
>
>
>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
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 : Wed Jan 19 2005 - 09:16:15 GMT