[MD] Sneddon Thesis

[Ant McWatt]

Platt Holden stated December 14th:

>Now in reading Sneddon's thesis I got the definite impression from his
>use of the words I highlighted that for him DQ was part of a cause-
>effect system. In other words, I felt he mislead the reader right off
>the bat. At least I didn't detect his cautioning the reader that DQ is
>"outside" any scientific-type, mechanism-driven explanatory paradigm.

Platt,

For a person who tends to overlook the Zen heritage of the MOQ your (ironic) 
query made me smile.

Anyway, to be fair, remember that Andrew Sneddon's MA thesis was written 
(and submitted) even before Pirsig's 1995 SODV paper was presented in 
Belgium.  The Zen orientated qualifications about Dynamic Quality (icw not 
being in any scientific-type, mechanism-driven explanatory paradigm) by 
Pirsig (in "Lila's Child" etc) that you mention - which I agree are 
important to keep in mind - hadn't even been written then.

Despite this, Sneddon commences his analysis of the MOQ with emphasising 
that Dynamic Quality is essentially indefinable i.e.

"Dynamic Quality is the undefined stimulus to change--the feeling that 
drives upwards evolution Static quality consists in patterns of behavior 
that ‘work’--’shapes’ of quality that satisfy the upward urge for the moment 
and function as platforms for the next response to the Dynamic stimulus."

In other words, Sneddon had it right re: the MOQ, as far as you could do in 
early 1995 (without being Robert Pirsig or Richard di Santo or possibly a 
Zen Master!).

Best wishes,

Anthony



>From: "Platt Holden" <pholden at davtv.com>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>Subject: Re: [MD] Sneddon Thesis
>Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 17:33:25 -0500
>
>Hi Ant,
>
>Thanks for taking the time and trouble to find the textual support in
>Pirsig's work for Sneddon's descriptions of Dynamic Quality. I raised
>the question because of Pirsig's repeated caution that DQ cannot
>be defined, such as in Lila -- "the 'undefined fittest' is identical to
>DQ" --  and in a letter to you dated March 1997,  -- "the MOQ
>incorporates a central term that isn't defined (i.e., Dynamic
>Quality)." Pirsig recognized this problem of definition in Lila with
>his famous reference to "Getting drunk and picking up bar ladies . . "
>
>But more than this, what prompted me to write is the following from
>Note 56 in Lila's Child:
>
>"The word 'produced' implies that  Dynamic quality is a part of a cause
>and effect system of the kind generated by scientific thinking.  But
>Dynamic Quality cannot be part of any cause and effect system since all
>cause and effect systems are static patterns.  All we can say is that
>these static patterns emerged and that they are better than physical
>nothingness."
>
>Now in reading Sneddon's thesis I got the definite impression from his
>use of the words I highlighted that for him DQ was part of a cause-
>effect system. In other words, I felt he mislead the reader right off
>the bat. At least I didn't detect his cautioning the reader that DQ is
>"outside" any scientific-type, mechanism-driven explanatory paradigm.
>Otherwise, one might get the idea that DQ is kind of force or energy
>like electro-magnetism, and that DQ is the "mechanism" that drives
>evolution. If we were to adopt that idea, would we not be right back in
>the SOM soup again?  I think so.
>
>Anyway, much obliged for your thoughtful response.
>
>Best wishes,
>Platt
>

_________________________________________________________________
Think you're a film buff? Play the Movie Mogul quiz and win fantastic 
prizes!  http://www.msnmoviemogul.com