[MD] Empirical and Historical

[Steve Peterson]

> Hi Matt,



> DMB said:
> Well, first of all, you might want to separate the empirical claims  
> from the historical, evolutionary claims. The sense of better and  
> worse is something that occurs in the moment of experience while  
> the survivors are the "best" products of that primary sense of  
> value. In other words, this primary sense of value works to guide  
> evolution while the best state is the goal toward which we are guided.
>
> Steve said:
> I think this comment is an important key to understanding the MOQ.  
> I've thought for a while that there are two different perspectives  
> that have to be kept in mind and kept distinct, and I'm glad that  
> DMB has given them useful distinguishing labels: empirical and  
> historical.
>
> Matt:
> This distinction, then, might be a profitable place to spend some  
> time exploring and articulating.
>
> For instance,
>
> 1) Are we making a distinction between an _empirical claim_ and an  
> _historical claim_? (DMB's words)
>
> 2) Are we making a distinction between an _empirical perspective_  
> and an _historical perspective_? (Steve's words)

> 3) What's the difference between a claim and a perspective?


Steve:

What I mean by the historical perspective is the MOQ hierarchy of  
value patterns which is based on the evolutionary view of the  
universe unfolding over billions of years. The hierarchy is justified  
based on time where the types of patterns evolved in a specific  
order. From this perspective inorganic patterns come first.  But  
Pirsig uses terms like "pre-intellectual awareness" to describe DQ as  
well. Certainly he is not talking about inorganic patterns which are  
also "pre-intellectual" in the historical perspective. Instead, DQ as  
pre-intellectual makes sense from the empirical perspective where  
time itself is not a given but derived from experience. From this  
perspective ideas come first which include such ideas as the  
evolutionary view of the universe unfolding over billions of years  
which justifies the MOQ hierarchy.

As to whether there is anything significant about claims versus  
perspectives, all I mean is that it is important to take into account  
on which perspective a given claim that Pirsig makes is based.


> 4) Are we talking about two different _senses_ of the concept DQ?
>
> 5) What does it mean for a single concept to have _different_  
> senses and yet still be a single, unified concept?
>

I think the MOQ hierarchy is an attempt to demonstrate DQ/sq at work  
through history, but if you want to understand DQ, it is the radical  
empirical perspective that is most important since DQ is the leading  
edge of experience. But I also tend to think that the less said about  
DQ the better. It is a koan--a concept representing the  
conceptionally unknown. I think the point is to think of the  
conceptually unknown as an immediate quality stimulus instead of an  
indifferent universe waiting to be discovered and evaluated.

As for "two different senses"--that is a gross understatement for a  
term that is infinitely definable and thus left better undefined.


Matt:
> 6) What's the relationship between an "empirical/historical  
> perspective" distinction and the "Dynamic/static" distinction (also  
> commonly referred to as "perspectives")?

Steve:
I think of empirical/historical as two different perspectives on the  
dynamic/static distinction.

Best,
Steve