From: Valuemetaphysics@aol.com
Date: Mon Jun 14 2004 - 01:12:30 BST
Mark and all MOQers:
dmb says:
I don't know what happened but the blue print and the other problems have
seemingly disappeared. What ever you did, please keep on doing it.
Mark 14-6-04: Hello dmb, your bracketed name has seemingly disappeared also.
Mark 13-6-04: OK. Stay calm.
The MOQ begins with a division of DQ and SQ. Is this too vague? Is this so
broad it has no meaning?
Regarding further metaphysical applications of DQ/SQ; will these be vague
also? Will they be so broad as to have no meaning?
Regarding excellence. How may a metaphysics which has for its basic division
DQ and SQ describe excellence? Will such a description be to broad? Vague?
Coherence describes excellence in MOQ terms.
dmb says:
Stay calm? Dude, I'm so calm that I'm nearly sleeping.
Mark 14-6-04: That's it! There we have it. You're not quite awake and didn't
realise the blue colour and the bracketed name was done by yourself. Coffee
might save your life.
Yes, left on its own
the DQ/sq division is too vague. This is only the first step in the MOQ. But
at least now I see that when you say "coherence" you mean "excellence". I
would only ask you why coherence is a better term. Why make the
substitution? We already have whole bag full of terms that mean the same
thing; values, morals, the good, quality, excellence and all the words that
are derived from RHT, etc., etc.. But more importantly, Pirsig himself
admits that further explanation is required. This comes from chapter 12,
which we used so well in our discussions of the levels, which is how this
debate began. Pirsig says...
"Once this independent nature of the levels of static patterns of value is
understood a lot of puzzles get solved. The first one is the puzzle of value
itself. In a SOM value has always been the most vague and ambiguous of
terms. What is it? When you say the world is composed of nothing but value,
what are you talking about?
Phaedrus thought this was why no one before had ever seemed to have come up
with the idea that the world is primarily value. The word is too vague. The
'value' that holds a glass of water together and the 'value' that holds a
nation together are obviously not the same thing. Therefore to say the world
is nothing but value is just confusing, not clarifying.
Now this vagueness is removed by sorting out values according to levels of
evolution."
Mark 14-6-04: Coherence is all about value evolution. But you said
> Coherence describes what? This is exactly what I DON'T understand. Here you
> seem to be expressing your main idea about coherence (I guess?) but it makes
> no sense to me. There are many kinds of Quality. There are many kinds of
> morals. There are many kinds of static patterns. Its just too vague.
>
Now you are arguing for coherence.
Mark provided a concrete example:
Question: Describe how a Motorcycle reaches its peak condition using the
Metaphysics of Quality.
dmb says:
Oh. I see. Well, its no wonder I'm confused.
Mark 14-6-04: Sleepy?
You're trying to analyze ZAMM
in terms of the MOQ. This is a surprize because your comments about
coherence were made in the context of discussing the levels, which DO NOT
APPEAR in ZAMM because they had not yet been concieved. This strikes me as
an interesting question, full of interesting problems, but I'm still not
sure your answer makes sense. I'd also point out that this is not an example
so much as a turning of the tables. I mean, I've asked you for an
explanation. I'm the one with the questions, remember? But at least I now
have a general idea of what topic we are discussing.
Mark 14-6-04: I'm not trying to analyse ZMM in MOQ terms, I have analysed ZMM
in MOQ terms. And there are no problems.
Mark 13-6-04: I doubt if there are many people in this forum who would
challenge that a metaphysical description of how a motorcycle reaches its
peak
condition should be at least possible. It would be rather fantastic if the
author of Zen and the art of Motorcycle maintenance would go on to develop a
metaphysics that could not do this without being so broad or vague as to
have no meaning.
dmb says:
In ZAMM its all about mastering the ideas and materials and proceeding to
care for the bike with peace of mind. Its about reconciling art and
technology, about treating machines as if they were sculptures and such. But
I don't see how it is improved by trying to describe this achievement in
terms of the MOQ's distinctions or in terms of coherence. In what sense is
motorcyle repair coherent? And why do we want to talk about the artistic
process in terms of levels or static patterns when art is primarily a
dynamic process? I mean, all the static patterns involved are, by
definition, coherent. They are by definition, that which holds the world
together. Are you beginning to see why this confuses rather than helps?
Mark 14-6-04: The essay you don't have time to read will tell you. Hey? Maybe
you read The edge of Chaos and forgot that you had read it because you were
almost asleep? After all, the blue colour and bracketed name must have happened
somehow?
That's it! You read TEOC ages ago and are only just remembering.
Mark said:
So, do it dmb. Answer the question. Tell us how four evolutionary related
levels of static patterns of Quality end up with a Motorcycle in peak
condition. If the discrete nature of MOQ levels precludes harmony, how does
a Motorcycle reach its peak condition? After all, a Motorcycle is composed
of Inorganic values; It is ridden by Biological patterns; It has a Social
pattern and without Intellectual patterns its technology would not exist.
dmb says:
I don't see how the levels add anything to the issue of motorcycle
maintenance nor do I think the point and purpose of ZAMM's central metaphor
had anything to do with the levels of static patterns, but was rather an
attempt to reconcile classic and romantic understanding, a distinction that
is abandoned in Lila.
Mark 14-6-04: In ZMM Robert Pirsig could have used the words 'sweet spot' at
any time when discussing Motorcycle maintenance and it would have not been
inappropriate. In fact it would have been very appropriate. These words are used
extensively in the US and have been for decades.
The sweet spot and coherence are the same.
Coherence is an MOQ way of saying many of the things that are discussed in
ZMM.
Further, the artistic process consists of mastering
the static patterns at all levels. The code of art transcends the levels and
can be applied equally to making dinner, creating a new idea or engaging in
a spiritual practice. I guess I don't really see the problem. (And I'm
assuming that your thoughts about coherence for a problem I do not see. Its
like you've come up with the answer to a question I have not asked.) Its
quite alright if some aspects of ZAMM can't be directly translated into the
MOQ. Why do you think we ought to try to do this?
Mark 14-6-04: I see. You knew all about this long ago. There's nothing new in
what Mark's saying; for dmb it's old hat and he can't see the fuss. And of
course it must be so, because Mark's e-mail's are never understood (when read)
by dmb, and there isn't an essay on the MOQ.org essay page worth reading, so
dmb hasn't read Mark's. This is true because dmb has stated it to be true, just
like he didn't arse about changing the colour of his text or place his name in
brackets or anything spiteful like that.
Mark 13-6-04: Well, what ever you decide to read, i suggest you leave off
the
old Ken Earl Wilbur. I'm not confident it is doing you any good. And that
brings us back to the MF Topic of May 2004 where this began. Rank, order and
hierarchy do not sit well with the oldest idea known to man. They do in
KEW's
Universe because the more rank, order and hierarchy there is, the more
convoluted you can become in your publishing. This makes for a very tidy
source of income at the expense of the gullible.
dmb says:
I believe you are sorely mistaken about "the oldest idea known to man", but
let us save that discussion for another thread.
Mark 14-6-04: Ken Wilbur is mistaken - you happen to agree with him. You
avoided this when i first argued for aesthetic harmony and you're still doing it
now. I am not mistaken.
I would only point out the
the levels of the MOQ are all about rank and order. That's what the word
"hierarchy" means. I will respond to another one of Platt's illogical and
ill-informed posts later today and there I will provide a specific and
concrete example that shows Wilber and Pirsig in agreement. Please take a
look and get back to me.
Mark 14-6-04: What ever your example shows it will not show agreement
regarding the matter under discussion in this post. The Pirsig quote you provided me
with after insisting that i imagined it not to exist used the word 'order.'
RTA is aesthetic harmony. RTA is not conceptual hierarchy. You've lost that one
dmb and that is all there is to it.
Mark 13-6-04: Well, allot of work went into the essay. The idea was say it
once so that people would not have to keep on asking for explanations. I
hope
you can see why i thought this would make sense?
dmb replies:
I don't mean to be cruel, by I'm still under the impression that reading
your essay would be a waste of time and would not make things any clearer.
Mark 14-6-04: And you were not being cruel when you changed your text colour
and then denied it. And you're not cruel when you use Platt as your personal
gimp year in year out? And your not cruel when you take anothers' ideas and
trash them, then agree with them, and then claim you knew all about them long ago
and can't see the fuss?
I've been reading your posts for years and they make sense only very rarely.
But, I'm willing to let you try to convince me otherwise.
Mark 14-6-04: It's going to be interesting to see how you develop this, 'of
course, i knew all about it even when Mark wasn't being very clear' stuff. I
don't need to convince you. You are already convinced. All that remains is for
you to deny this and then give your friends the best impression possible that
you were on to it years ago.
It isn't working.
Remember Matt K?
He was utterly convinced of the greatness of his essay, but I found it
exceedingly self-indulgent and nearly unreadable. Bo's essay? Read it
several times and read hundreds of his posts and still have only the vaguest
idea of what he was trying to say. I've found this to be true of anyone who
goes off the reservation.
Mark 14-6-04: You've forgotten David, the bloke from Australia, and Sam
Norton. These four have one thing in common with you dmb: They all valued another
philosopher/philosophy more than the MOQ. Spooky.
I do not value another philosophy more than the MOQ.
I mean, my reluctance is based on experience. I'm
getting too old to waste my time like that, you know. Living is a process of
discovery and I'm always willing to take a chance whenever there is some
kind of reason to believe a particular area of exploration will be worth
while, but I think its also important to see that there are dead-ends and
roads that we'd simply rather not go down. But like I said, go ahead, make
the case.
Mark 14-6-04: Give it up dmb. We all know you've read TEOC so there's no need
to go for the Oscar. This is very sad dude. Tres Sad. You're treating us like
we really are that dumb. Like we're going, 'oh is that right dmb? uh huh.
ohhhh yeah! yeah! never read it? go on. yeah? Is THAT right? You don't say dude?
You're THE man! Right on. Never? Never read it? Ooooooooooohhh yeah.'
I still don't see the value or the point of this idea of "coherence".
Later,
dmb
Mark 14-6-04: But the people I value most in my life do you see. I don't need
you and your acting shit dude, i've got better sources and better feedback.
All the best,
Mark
------- End of forwarded message -------
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 Jun 14 2004 - 02:03:23 BST