[MD] On Balance: Dewey, Pirsig and Granger

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

[Marsha]
It seems to me that you were previously arguing against the idea that DQ was the
major driving force in the MOQ.

[Arlo]
Never. What I was arguing against was the overprivileging of DQ. The MOQ, as I
understand it, demonstrates an evolutionary relationship between "static" and
"Dynamic" qualities, and it is _because of_ this co-relationship that evolution
is possible. It sees SQ/DQ in a Yin-Yang manner. Too much Yin, bad. Too much
Yang, bad. Too much SQ, bad. Too much DQ, bad.

[Marsha]
But accepting that DQ is the major driving force does not render all SQ
unimportant.

[Arlo]
Here's where we part ways, Marsha. The "major driving force" is the interplay
between DQ and SQ. And it is from this force that evolutionary movement, from
inorganic to biological to social to intellectual, is able to occur.

Granger (using Dewey) points exactly to this dialectic relationship, and grounds
(along with Pirsig) the moments of oscillation (if you will) between DQ and SQ
in immediate esthetic experience. That is, "immediate esthetic experience" is
made possible by a world consisting of both forms of Quality.

This is what he means when he says that in a world without DQ, or in a world
without SQ, "immediate esthetic experience" would be impossible.

Mark has suggested "coherence", and I haven't really followed his formulation of
this term. So maybe that is "what I am orbiting around". I can't really say
either way.

[Marsha]
Now you are focusing on the word 'balance'.

[Arlo]
I think if you review the thread, you'll see that "balance" has been my focus
since the beginning.

[Marsha]
Do you mean balance vs chaos, or order vs freedom with balance in the middle?

[Arlo]
I mean balance vs BOTH chaos and stagnation. I've said in previous posts,
"freedom" is a function of balance, not exclusively of DQ. That is, my
"freedom" to ride to remote Canadian locations would NOT be possible in a world
of chaos (all DQ) or stagnation (all SQ). (By the way, Dewey's terms for these
are a world "wholly perturbed" or "of mere flux" (all DQ) and a world
"finished, ended or already complete" (all SQ)). My ride depends as much on SQ
as it does DQ. If it wasn't for a whole mountain of SQ underneath me, I would
not have the freedom for that ride. And, of course, if there is excessive SQ
underneath me, I would not have the freedom for that ride either.

But I'll reword this complying with Pirsig's use of "freedom" as a function of
DQ. I'd say then that my "immediate esthetic experience" of taking that ride is
made possible by a balance of "freedom" (DQ) and "order" (SQ). I think this
says the same thing, and I do think Pirsig's use of "freedom" to refer to DQ
complicates. That is, when we think of "freedom", we typically think of things
like "ability to go to the bar and have a brew with some buddies". But, if we
accept Pirsig's use of "freedom" to describe DQ, its hard to imagine that in a
world of "pure freedom" we would NOT be able to do that, but that would be
case. Our "freedom" to do things, to think things, to paint, to dance, etc.,
would not be possible in a world of pure DQ, where there would be no bars, no
paint, no patterned movement, no language, etc. It is for this reason that I
reject the idea that "freedom" is DQ. Freedom arises FROM DQ and SQ in balance.

[Marsha]
Maybe you can describe how you're using this word 'balance'.

[Arlo]
I thought this is pretty much all I've been doing. :-)