[MD] Mystics, Brains -- Matt has a question

[Squonkriff at aol.com]

Hi Matt,
 
Matt:
A.'I think one of the most important parts of Pirsig's description of  
Dynamic Quality 
is that its unexpected.'
 
 
B. '...when you say I'm "satisfied." That is a perfect description. I  am 
satisfied with the line of thinking, with the repertoire I have to deal with  
situations, I am in equilibrium, coherent.'

 
Mark:
1. One may dispense with DQ altogether and still acknowledge that the  
unexpected may happen. A. in conjunction with B. reduces DQ to fatalism; the  
equilibria of: 'What will be will be regardless of what i do or do not  do.'
This provides a description of coherence as stasis. I do not advocate this  
description:
 
The Dynamic pragmatist has two complimentary aspects:
a. The static repertoire is a static aspect of Dynamic  behaviour.
b. The Dynamic aspect of Dynamic behaviour itself are functions of  
manipulation: anticipation, problem solving.
Coherence is concerned with the relationship between  these complimentary 
aspects.
 
2. Therefore, coherence may be an index of Dynamic  behaviour?
By 2. it may be seen that coherence is a matter of intensity.
 
(For this reason i have suggested talk of coherence may be better than talk  
of simply the Dynamic - 'Dynamic' is an absolute term; coherence may increase 
or  decrease in intensity.)
 

3. This may lead to the suggestion that all knowledge may be of some  value 
for the repertoire?
c. A negative argument: trivial knowledge is, by definition, of no  use.
d. A positive argument: Poetry is not trivial knowledge.
 
The suggestion that poetry is itself a microcosm of coherence: a lesson in  
intellectual coherence displaying some of the greatest human art ever created; 
a  panoply of rich metaphors of universal application may support 3d.

 
4. By 2. and 3d. poetry is a valid inclusion for the static  repertoire.
 
5. 4. contributes to the intensity of your coherence as a  thinker.
 
6. DQ is a teleological goal of moral evolution and not  fatalism.
 
7. Coherence aims at DQ.
 
8. Therefore, Dynamic behaviour is an end in itself and a moral pursuit  
according to the moq.
 
Matt:
C. '...if you accept everything I just said, my defense of my belief that I  
_am_, as you called it, a "Dynamic pragmatist," it leaves us in  
more-agreement-than-previously-thought-imaginable still.'
 
Mark:
Your definition of a Dynamic pragmatist is: 'Satisfied to be a  fatalist.'
My definition of a Dynamic pragmatist is: 'A moral pursuit.'
That is if you accept everything i just said.
 
Love,
Mark
 
 
P.S.
Ian Glendenning is aware of my forthcoming talk to the University of  
Liverpool's Interdisciplinary forum (IDF). After receiving the invitation (as  all MA 
students do) i decided to talk about the moq. But how to use the moq in  the 
talk?
I decided to call my abstract: 'The moq and the unity of  disciplines.'
If you visit the IDF webpage, you will be able to examine a list of  previous 
presentations.
Among those listed are presentations on engineering, philosophy, poetry,  
languages, mathematics, etc.
It is my intention to suggest the moq provides a unifying metaphysics for  
all disciplines.