[MD] The Quality/MOQ meta-metaphysics

[plattholden at gmail.com]

Hi Horse,

Great post! Thanks. It's going to take me awhile to think about what you've 
written. But, to my mind this is the direction we should go if we ever want to 
add anything significant to the understanding and value of the MOQ, not that it 
doesn't have great value already. The last few lines of Pirsig's SODV paper 
have always intrigued me. 

"They were at the cutting edge of knowledge plunging into the unknown trying to 
bring something out of that unknown into a static form that would be of value 
to everyone. As Bohr might have loved to observe, science and art are just two 
different complementary ways of looking at the same thing. In the largest sense 
it is really unnecessary to create a meeting of the arts and sciences because 
in actual practice, at the most immediate level they have never really been 
separated. They have always been different aspects of the same human purpose." 

It's this joining of art and science under the code of Quality that I find a 
logical extension of the MOQ whereby different branches of knowledge now 
pursuing different goals with different methods unite in common "human 
purpose." 

That's my challenge, anyway, and why your post was of great value to me.

Regards,
Platt  



On 30 Jun 2010 at 14:51, Horse wrote:

> Hi Platt
> 
> Apologies for not continuing our previous conversation in a similar vein 
> - I got waylaid by music!
> 
> Hmmm, tricky one this.
> 
> The codes that Pirsig talks about illustrate the way a higher static 
> level dominates the static level below - organic dominates inorganic, 
> social dominates organic, intellect dominates social. He then talks of a 
> 'dynamic morality' and says that it isn't really a code, not exactly 
> anyway, more like a 'code of art'.
> In the context it appears, this 'code of art' describes a relationship 
> between DQ ('dynamic morality') and intellect. It's not really a code 
> because it involves an undefinable element (DQ) and a definable element, 
> intellect. If it was a code, in the sense of the previous codes he 
> refers to, then it would mean that DQ is defined, which it can't be 
> according to the MoQ. Instead of a code maybe we should call it the 
> 'intellect-DQ relationship' or something similar. The way in which Art 
> and Intellect interact. The artistic (dynamic) element dominates 
> intellect but is dependent upon it, just as intellect dominates social 
> but is dependent upon it, social dominates organic but is dependent etc. 
> in the evolutionary structure of the MoQ's hierarchy.
> What I think this means is that although intellect is subordinate to 
> art, art is not possible without intellect - in the same way that the 
> social level is subordinate to intellect but intellect would not be 
> possible without the social level. Given that art is unique to humans 
> (I'm not aware of art existing elsewhere i.e. in other animals), then 
> the 'intellect-DQ relationship' is also unique to humans. So when we 
> create music or a painting or a novel (or whatever) then we imply that, 
> as art, it has a unique relationship to human intellect. Intellect is 
> necessary but not dominant. The act of creating is dynamic but the 
> result is static may be another way of putting it. Maybe!
> 
> Re: your question "... the MoQ, like art, isn't static, or shouldn't be 
> anyway." you would have to consider whether there is an element of art 
> in the MoQ (creation) and what relationship does that have to the 
> intellectual pattern that is the MoQ. If you're saying that the MoQ is 
> art then, by implication, it can't be defined and as such is not a 
> metaphysics. I think the best way I can think of at the moment to answer 
> this is to say that the relationship of DQ to the MoQ is covered by the 
> 'intellect-DQ relationship'. In this way Quality (DQ/SQ) gives a defined 
> element (SQ - MoQ) and an undefined element (DQ) as the relationship. 
> Pirsig created the MoQ (artistic) and the result is a static pattern.
> 
> I'm not sure if this is the best answer or the one you want to hear but 
> anyway, that's my initial take on it.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> 
> Horse
> 
> 
> 
> On 28/06/2010 20:20, Platt Holden wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 12:59 PM, Horse<horse at darkstar.uk.net>  wrote:
> >
> >    
> >> Hi Platt
> >>
> >> Where did Pirsig say this? I believe he talked about a code of art and this
> >> was in the context of relating Intellect to DQ. If there is a level of art
> >> then it becomes static quality - something that art is not - or shouldn't be
> >> anyway!
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >>
> >>   Horse
> >>      
> >
> > Hi Horse,
> >
> > Chapter 13 of Lila. The context is the supremacy of higher moral codes of
> > lower with the top being Dynamic morality which might be called a code of
> > art  From Pirsig's comments about the MOQ being open to improvements
> > (philosophy vs. philosophology) I presume the MOQ, like art, isn't static,
> > or shouldn't be anyway. What do you think?