[MD] Intellect's Symposium

[David Thomas]

 Hi Andre
> [Andre]
> Hi Dave, I recognise a reference to an earlier post I sent that's why
> I jump in. I agree that the details of the MoQ matter. My point was
> that these details won't get us closer to Quality.
I'm confused. (normal state maybe?) And you are not the only one who
confuses me because others say similar things.

If you and I are static patterns of quality interrelated with other static
patterns of quality all of which are immersed in dynamic quality, What
practically could "closer to Quality" mean? Outside of a better
understanding of it? (This is quasi rhetorical as I've heard all genre of
"follow your dynamic bliss" answers over the years.)

> The details of the MoQ do matter for us; to learn and understand
> static Quality patterns, and their relationships within an
> evolutionary framework. better.
> 
> Only in this way can we (hopefully) avoid the blunders of, for
> example, the dialectical materialist doctrine of evolution, the
> practical workings of which you describe.

We all have at least some understanding of the dire practical consequences
of Engel adding "dialectic" to the theory of "materialism."

[Mary added]
> Social Darwinism is an example of the unfortunate fact that if you screw
> around with an idea (like evolution, in this case) long enough, you can come
> up with a way to turn it into something else.  Philosophy for the masses
> seems like a lot to bite off.  What if we just start with "proper
> application of the scientific method" for the masses?  Would that help?
> Seems easier to me. :)

Agreed. Pirsig claimed that what he trying to do was not destroy Western
philosophy, or science, or technology but slide a new foundation under it.
He also claimed that the current foundation, SOM, was seriously flawed to
begin with,the structure above had developed major cracks, they were
widening, and the building above was becoming unlivable.

In real buildings fixing foundations without causing any damage is extremely
difficult. Practically impossible. There are three basic way this is done:

1. Reinforce, shore up the existing foundation.
2. Build a new one over, under, around,through, etc, the existing one
leaving it mostly in place.
3. Jack the building up, remove the old one, and then build a new one.

Pirsig chose the second method which leaves SOM in place incorporating the
salvageable parts of it into the finished project. Was this a mistake? For
Pirsig and most other people not really.

I'll return to my conversation with Bo to see if I can increase those "other
people" by one. I am not optimistic. And that is a good thing. For me at
least.

Dave