[MD] The Quality/MOQ meta-metaphysics

[Platt Holden]

Hi Horse,

You got that right. Applies to all worthwhile endeavors  That's what I'm
looking for -- the common thread. Thanks.

Regards,
Platt.

On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 5:26 PM, Horse <horse at darkstar.uk.net> wrote:

> Hi Platt
>
> Something that popped into my head as I was reading your post was the old
> saying about "99% Perspiration, 1% Inspiration" with respect to both Art and
> Science.Not sure if the percentages are correct but this seems to sum up the
> intellect-DQ relationship.
>
> Cheers
>
> Horse
>
>
> On 30/06/2010 21:12, plattholden at gmail.com wrote:
>
>> 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?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> Moq_Discuss mailing list
>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>> Archives:
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
>
> "Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production
> deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid."
> — Frank Zappa
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>