[MD] Food for Thought

[Case]

Dan said to Case:
I find I do not share your vision of the MOQ so it's difficult to follow the

above passage. You seem fixated on systems, situations, events, and things 
which is all very SOMish.

dmb says:
Henry Gurr's website has a long list of links to all sorts of projects in 
which the MOQ was practically applied to everything from physics to dance. 
>From what I've gathered here, the recently published book applies the MOQ to

education, for example. Also, the distinction between social and 
intellectual static quality is used extensively to perform a kind of 
sociological diagnosis of the West's recent history. I mean, its not very 
hard to make a case that this distinction is supposed to serve as an 
explanatory tool that was invented with real world problems in mind. But I 
don't think that any of that has much to do with Dan's complaint...

[Case]
Dan charge seems to imply that fixation on the tangible is SOM. Now you are
saying the MoQ is plenty tangible. I know I have the unfortunate habit of
lumping your positions together but it's hard to avoid this when being
double teamed. As for Gurr's site unless I missed something, his list is of
people and courses that include ZMM on their list of great books or in the
course reading list. It certainly is on mine. But one of the exciting things
about Granger's book on Dewey and Pirsig was it rarity as an academic work.
So far by my count we have a thesis, a dissertation, lots of book reports
and not much more in the form of academic credibility. Even Wilbur from his
vantage point in the New Age section can point to more success in academia,
as you are quick to point out.

dmb says:
Before I get to your reply, let me say I agree with Dan here. Like I said, 
your view is sane and reasonable but it all seems to be standard SOM stuff. 
I can understand why a guy might cling to Kant's TiTs, but its contrary to 
the MOQ and so it is with this debate about the levels. Its kinda like 
you've paid no attention to the MOQ's criticism of these sorts of views. 
Thus my analogy. Selling SOM here is like trying to sell a V-8 to the most 
famous advocate of the electric car.

[Case]
You did a fine job in the Kant's Motorcycle thread of stating what you saw
as the difference between Pirsig's bike and Kant's scooter but it all just
looked like a paint job to me. Throughout the thread I became increasingly
convince the Pirsig's Quality is indistinguishable from Kant's TITs. I don't
recall you doing much to disabuse me of this view.

Case replied to Dan:
I am not sure specifically what it is we disagree about. I have been trying 
for some time now to show that whether the MoQ is about philosophical 
mysticism or not, it also applies directly to the everyday world. It 
transcends application to four or five or any number of levels. It is the 
Tao where opposites unite. It is Chaos from which order emerges. It's 
potency lies not in a warm fuzzy feeling of goodness but in the growth and 
dispersal of complex relationships.

dmb says:
As I see it, the disagreement is at the very start. If we're talking about 
the MOQ and you are rebutting that with SOM positions, then the disagreement

stems for differing metaphysical assumptions. In any case, I don't think 
mysticism, Taoism or "warm fuzzy feelings" are particularly relevant to the 
distinction between social and intellectual static quality. We might rightly

get into a little philosophy of science and some political science, 
sociological analysis, a reading of history and stuff like that. See, I 
think the big idea here, if one can call it that, is that the type of 
rationality that we've inherited has a flaw in it such that there is a great

deal of confusion in these areas. When the scientific method is transfered 
from physics, from the examination of inorganic nature and we attempt to 
apply it to the humanities something weird happens. Pirsig talks about how 
screwy this view is when its applied to anthropology via Dunesberry, etc.. 
In areas of science where we study people instead of rocks the notion of 
value-free objectivity shows its shortcomings and things get really warped. 
The MOQ's attack on SOM is aimed at this problem and a whole cluster of 
similar problems. Your quasi-Behaviorism, for example, strikes me as one of 
those warped things.

[Case]
What Pirsig is doing is extending an evolutionary perspective into the world
of esthetics. Evolution is after all about how static equilibrium is
achieved and sustained in a dynamic environment. 

The pragmatic stance that all of experience is worthy of consideration is
valuable indeed. As I pointed out in a post earlier today social sciences,
especially in the last century and extending into the present have an
inferiority complex. What Pirsig points out in the early history of
anthropology is the tendency to try to out objectifying the physicists. The
fault permeates all of the social sciences. But it is dissipating especially
as the hard science move towards a view where determinism does not equate
with prediction and control. And it does not mean that the social science do
not have something to teach us. 

I fully realize the limitations of behaviorism for example. But I also see
that behavioral principles are being applied with devastating effectiveness
in modern culture. Skinner's response curves accurately predict everything
from working for the man, losing money in coke machines to the origins of
ritual and superstition. Aesthetical Skinner blows chunks, Beyond Freedom
and Dignity? Even Rand would be stuck to formulate a more obnoxious title.
But I mostly have avoided discussing Skinner out of respect for your
contempt.

More to the point at hand I have voiced my skepticism about the usefulness
of static levels but I regard them as totally secondary to the central
points of the MoQ. Aw hell, I have disagree with lots of what you guys seem
to think is central to the MoQ and I have offered alternative views that as
far as I can tell can only be dismissed by slapping SOM on their bumpers. I
really don't think the MoQ is ONLY about mystical monism or mysticism in any
form. I really don't think the MoQ is anti-theistic. But so what. Even
Pirsig said dissenters are welcome here. Is this not true. Are you two
saying that dissent is unwelcome and can be simply dismissed with "He's SOM,
oh well."

Because if you are comfortable browsing the New Age section, fine. Have
another mocha and pretend it's philosophy, if it suits you. I think the MoQ
belongs in the science section.

Case said:
I could give more examples but I am told they are irrelevant. Appeals to 
sanity, reason and contact with any supposed "reality" are, according to 
some, not part of the MoQ. Whether I understand the MoQ or not is certainly 
an open question but I sure don't understand that.

dmb says:
It seems I am the unnamed defendent in this case. Not that I'm advocating 
insanity, unreason or unreality. I'm just saying that the MOQ is a critique 
of the West's most basic metaphysical assumptions, the commonly held 
worldview of scientists and even guys with TiTs, like Kant. Pirsig's 
critique takes issue with lots of perfectly smart and sane people, from 
Plato to Descartes and beyond. He even calls Aristotle and asshole. I mean, 
even if you want to take this critcism as an insult you'd still  be in 
pretty good company there, fractal breath.

[Case]
If I left your name off it was an oversight, Buddha Boy. As I have stated
many, many times I think the first cut of metaphysics into stasis and
dynamics is a brilliant move. But mystifying the terms is a big step in the
wrong direction. How saying this make me SOM remains a mystery but I will
readily admit to being a bigger asshole than Aristotle ever thought about
being. This is the first party I have been to where anyone has accused me of
being smart or sane. It really is hard to know how to take that. I guess I
really just dropped in to drop a steamer in the punchbowl.