[MD] On Balance: Dewey, Pirsig and Granger

[MarshaV]

Hi Arlo,

I'm going to go slow so I don't get lost.


At 12:21 PM 12/16/2006, you wrote:
>[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.

Hold that thought.

>What I was arguing against was the overprivileging of DQ.

Funny, I think the norm is quite the opposite.  I think that, in 
fact, sq gets privileged over DQ.  The sq is placed on a high alter 
in the form of me, myself and I, and my opinions.

So can we say that within the MOQ, DQ is major driving force, and 
experiencing the interaction between DQ and sq is the major process?

>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.

I totally agree with this statement.  And I don't see the word balance.

>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.

I don't think Pirsig mentions a relationship between DQ/sq in a 
Yin-Yang manner, but I'm not positive.

>[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.

I would say that interplay between DQ and sq is the process, 
activity, experience.  And it is vital.

>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.

Not sure of the first sentence, but I totally agree with the last sentence.

>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.

You bet, because I am a constellation of static patterns of value 
(sq).  If am the one doing the experiencing, than sq is definitely there.


>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.

I have not yet warmed up to Mark's "coherence".

>[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.

Like you, there is much sq I really like.  I don't like the word 
'balance'.  I don't.  I don't.  If you drop the word balance, I'll 
sing you 'My Favorite Things' from The Sound of Music.

Marsha