[MD] Bo's right! For all the wrong reasons? (Part2)

[Ian Glendinning]

Inserted [IG] below Krim, (and all) ...

(You did ignore my plea for some downside review of practical snags
etc ... but hey - I believe this is an important conversation.)

On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 5:14 PM, Krimel <Krimel at krimel.com> wrote:
>> [Ian]
>> My view is pragmatic. Name a preferable metaphysics...
>>
>> [Krimel]
>> Taoism.
>
>> [Ian]
>> Go on, Krim, I'm listening (and don't forget to consider
>> the downside / abuses / risks as well ...)
>
> [Krimel]
> Pirsig does a pretty good job with this in ZMM. I will never understand why
> he messes it up so in Lila.

[IG] It's blindingly obvious why the approach changes in Lila - you
call it messing up, I call it introducing some probably unnecessary
complications. Hey, that's life. He wanted to address his rhetorical
arguments in ZMM to a more formal philosophy audience in Lila. He wins
no prizes for engagement with academic philosophy - he alienates them
by branding them philosophologists for a start - but that has no
bearing on whether his metaphysics is any good.

> Basically the idea is that we apprehend and name
> the world through oppositions, white/black, big/small, ugly beautiful etc.

[IG] You are simply suggesting this is the GOF / SOM / Classical view
that prevails ? No argument.

> The Way or the path of virtue is understanding the world less through
> opposition than through harmony. Opposites are not usually matters of
> either/or but of balance and proper relationship.

[IG] You are telling me ? My main cracked-record mantra.

>
> I think one of the problems with the MoQ is Pirsig's effort at metaphysical
> stone cutting. He pictures this as revolving around finding the "right"
> first cut. Personally, since his locates his first cut about were Taoist
> have traditionally place emphasis I thought he had it nailed until arriving
> here four or five years ago.

[IG] My perspective is different. I saw this based on practical
experience before I'd ever heard of Pirsig or the Tao. But OK.

> Now I see it as a mistake to regard even the
> static/dynamic split as essential to Taoism which metaphysically handles all
> oppositions.

[IG] Absolutely. There is nothing "essential" about the foundation of
any metaphysics. It is always a choice. The proof is in the working
(problem solving) value of the metaphysics thus constructed.

> The emphasis on static and dynamic is mainly a matter of a
> particularly ubiquitous set of oppositions. Thing are changing or like to
> change or stationary and unlike to move.

[IG] Now this is a key point. (we're still not talking about the value
of levels and patterns notice - just the ineffable core of the MoQ -
Quality and the first split.) Dynamic is the key point. Yes, in
everyday language everything is moving and static to some extent - a
sliding scale. BUT DQ is not about "things that move". In fact NOTHING
in the world is absolutely static. Everything is always changing. It
is always a matter of timescales. BUT DQ is about the bleeding edge of
existence - radical empirical - totally dynamic, not yet part of ANY
reified or conceptualized pattern or object. Something that is part of
the possibility in every change, but not part of any pattern or
object. For me the Tao is about being open to that bleeding-edge of DQ
possibility at any possible moment.

>
> That sense of harmony which characterizes Lao Tsu's descriptions of The Way
> seems at least to be inborn and them amplified by culture. We have a sense
> of the world that is right for us. We sense harmonious relationships which
> is what I take Pirsig to be saying. That sense of harmony is like our sense
> of direction or our senses of time, space and probability.

[IG] Hmm. Inborn ? In humans, or in existence generally ? Harmony is
indeed a key concept - integration rather than opposition, to return
to the mantra. It is that feeling we humans have that this is innate
"common sense" which makes these views so attractive - I agree, me too
- but by itself, that doesn't give us any practical framework for
life's decisions and actions, other than a subjectively relative one,
does it ? We need a bit more than "if it feels good do it". That's
just a start.

>
> The biggest problem with the MoQ account of this is the idea of "betterness"
> which I would call "harmony". Betterness and harmony are not properties of
> DQ or SQ they are properties of the relationship or proportion of SQ to DQ.
> In is not a matter of DQ good, SQ bad.

[IG] Clearly not. Did anyone ever suggest it was ? (Properties of ...
etc. ... we're objectivising Q and DQ too much here ?)

 > It is a matter of the balance of DQ
> and SQ. Pirsig plays lip service to this but even a casual stroll through
> the archives will reveal that it is Pirsig waxing rhapsodically about DQ
> that really catches on. People here seem to think the DQ is "betterness" and
> that it is more important than SQ. I think they are wrong on both counts.

[IG] I already agreed with you. The DQ of possibility needs the static
latches of SQ / PoV's. Lip service ? It's called rhetoric, where's the
surprise ?

[IG] OK so we like the ineffable Tao at the core of DQ. But that's not
a useful (pragmatically applicable) metaphysics by itself, not
something individuals and society can apply to moral governance of
their activities. And any metaphysics we build will have its good
points AND its risks - like Zen monks arming themselves for
nationalist wars, maybe. The MoQ may be imperfect, but it's a lot more
than an ineffable core idea open to abuse.

Regards
Ian