From: Paul Turner (paulj.turner@ntlworld.com)
Date: Mon Feb 16 2004 - 17:45:25 GMT
Bo, Mati
Bo said:
We are at the STATIC levels always...
Paul:
Well, I think this is not entirely correct. I think experience is
regarded by the MOQ as the combination of Dynamic and static quality.
Consider the following statements:
"Every time you discover for the first time that something is better
than something else, that is where Dynamic Quality exists. There is no
fixed static location for it." [Robert Pirsig, Letter to Ant, February
23, 1998]
and
"Dynamic Quality is a stream of quality events going on and on forever,
always at the cutting edge of the present. But in the wake of this
cutting edge are static patterns of value. These are memories, customs
and patterns of nature. The reason there is a difference between
individual evaluations of quality is that although Dynamic Quality is a
constant, these static patterns are different for everyone because each
person has a different static pattern of life history. Both the Dynamic
Quality and the static patterns influence his final judgment." [SODV
p.13]
Bo said:
...and decisions have to be made from the next higher static level. It
is Life that decides how good inorganic patterns are, Society about
Biology and Intellect about Society.
Paul:
Seen in the light of the above statements, do you see why I think this
is incorrect? E.g. as I read the above, you've converted "life" into a
kind of "subject" experiencing "inorganic matter" as an object. Static
patterns make no value judgements, static patterns *are* value
judgements.
Bo said:
And with no judge of intellect there is no way to tell how good or bad
an intellectual pattern is
Paul:
If you are looking for a static measure of intellectual quality then how
about this..
"Intellectual quality measurements are logic, fittingness to empirical
data, economy of statement, and what is sometimes called 'elegance' by
mathematicians. Social quality measurements of quality, by contrast, are
such things as conformity to social custom, popularity, ego
satisfaction, and 'reputation'. Biological standards are physical pain
and pleasure." [Pirsig, 1998]
Bo said:
If a person decides that the highest quality "idea" is to slam a
jetliner into a building who can tell?
Paul:
I think the 9/11 bombers were motivated by social and biological
patterns of anger, hatred, religious zealotry and deference to
authority. Putting intellectual patterns, of any quality, to the use of
biological and social patterns is a form of evil in the MOQ.
Bo said:
Something "beyond" intellect is needed to judge its value.
Paul:
Value creates ideas and is not really a property of them, but that
aside, the something "beyond intellect" is Dynamic Quality.
"[T]he Metaphysics of Quality says that Dynamic Quality - the
value-force that chooses an elegant mathematical solution to a laborious
one, or a brilliant experiment over a confusing, inconclusive one - is
another matter altogether. Dynamic Quality is a higher moral order than
static scientific truth.." [Lila p.418]
Bo said:
Water "objective"? Didn't Pirsig go to great lengths in LILA to show
that matter has no objective quality, and "mind" no subjective quality.
Paul:
He didn't say that we should discard matter. The MOQ does two things
with matter. First it says that matter is better described as a form of
quality - static inorganic quality. Second it says that reality is not
entirely a form of or an extension of the properties of static inorganic
quality.
The same is done with mind. It says that mind is better described as a
form of quality - static intellectual quality. Then it says that reality
is not entirely a form of or an extension of the properties of static
intellectual quality.
We are then out of the irresolvable mind/matter relationship because
one does not have to be reduced to the other. They are both reduced to
patterns of value. See this from Ant's Textbook.
"The MOQ never says that the intellectual level is just the inorganic
level in disguise. The only reason the SOM people say that, I think, is
that they are trying to prove that everything is inorganic in order to
satisfy the demands of materialism. But in the MOQ all the levels are
embedded in quality and they don't need to be embedded in each other."
(Pirsig, 2001b)
Bo said:
From where comes this new subjectivity and objectivity ...AFTER the SOM
has been done away with???
Paul:
I'll let Pirsig's words answer that one:
"It's clear I've been of two minds on whether subjects and objects
should be included in the MOQ. My earlier view, when I was concentrating
on the confusion of subject-object thinking, was to get rid of them
entirely to help clarify things. Later I began to see it's not necessary
to get rid of them because the MOQ can encase them neatly within its
structure-the upper two levels being subjective, and the lower two,
objective. Still later I saw that the subject-object distinction is very
useful for sharply distinguishing between biological and social levels.
If I had been more careful in my editing, I would have eliminated or
modified the earlier statements to bring them into agreement with the
latter ones. However I missed these and it's valuable that the Lila
Squad has caught them." [Lila's Child p.531]
Bo said:
Speaking of turning things upside down. The intellectual, scientific
description of the world is the "objectivisation" of subjective
experience; of turning this inorganic pattern that all life
need - socially know as "water" - into a chemical called H2O with a lot
of objective properties.
Paul:
Now you are doing it. All "scientific properties" including those
ascribed to objective (inorganic-biological) patterns are elements of
intellectual knowledge and are therefore subjective.
"Scientists often forget that all scientific knowledge is subjective
knowledge based on experience, although science does not deny that this
is true." [Pirsig, Lila's Child p.178]
Regards
Paul
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 - 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 2.1.5 : Mon Feb 16 2004 - 17:55:43 GMT