[MD] MOQ Recursion

[ADRIE KINTZIGER]

I agree strongly and completely on the last part of your abstraction, Arlo,
schould be clear that
reason is the guidance,REASON, yes,superb observation.
Good interactions with DMB, nice thread. (Adrie)

2010/8/10 ARLO J BENSINGER JR <ajb102 at psu.edu>

> [Platt began]
> Whether the MOQ is an intellectual pattern or a metaphysics or something
> else...
>
> [Arlo]
> You do realize what the "M" in "MOQ" stands for, don't you?
>
> I am convinced this problem is two-fold; beginning with the narrative genre
> used by Pirsig ("The Metaphysics of Quality says...") and the
> solidification of
> the acronym (The MOQ) that leads people to have to ponder whether "the
> METAPHYSICS of Quality" is a metaphysics "or something else"... I mean,
> c'mon...
>
> The end-result is the SOLists deifying the Word, confusing the "map" with
> the
> "territory" it attempts to describe. And so we see ridiculous statements
> like
> 'when the MOQ is defined and analyzed it becomes an intellectual pattern'.
>
> The Metaphysics of Quality IS an attempt to define and analyze Quality. It
> does
> not precede definition, it IS definition. What should be clearly 'When
> Quality
> is defined and analyzed it becomes an intellectual pattern' gets confused
> into
> something that makes no sense.
>
> [Platt]
> I simply call it a world view and believe the better discussion is whether
> or
> not the MOQ is superior to other world views.
>
> [Arlo]
> Are "world views" patterns of value? Are you saying there are other "world
> views" on your level above intellect, or outside intellect, or wherever off
> which Pirsig's metaphysics exists in parallel? I'm not saying better or
> worse
> here, at all, just saying these other "world views" are to the MOQ like
> Cartesian are to Polar coordinates; not morally inferior according to the
> hierarchy, just "worse" in your estimation?
>
> [Platt]
> The "Aristotelian framework" is what I consider the intellectual level to
> be,
> dominated by S/O patterns.
>
> [Pirsig]
> "First of all I should say that I don't know whether Phædrus' claim that
> Quality is the Tao is true. ... That sounds like an overwhelming rejection
> of
> what he thought and said, but it isn't. I think it's a statement he would
> have
> agreed with himself, since ANY description of Quality is a kind of
> DEFINITION
> and must therefore fall short of its mark. I think he might even have said
> that
> statements of the kind he had made, which fall short of their mark, are
> even
> worse than no statement at all, since they can be easily MISTAKEN for TRUTH
> and
> thus retard an understanding of Quality. ...
>
> No, he did nothing for Quality or the Tao. What benefited was REASON. He
> showed
> a way by which reason may be EXPANDED to include elements that have
> previously
> been unassimilable and thus have been considered irrational. I think it's
> the
> overwhelming presence of these irrational elements CRYING FOR ASSIMILATION
> that
> creates the present bad quality, the chaotic, disconnected spirit of the
> twentieth century. ...
>
> ... The dictum that Science and its offspring, technology, are "value
> free,"
> that is, "quality free," HAS GOT TO GO. It's that "value freedom" that
> UNDERLINES the death-force effect to which attention was brought early in
> the
> Chautauqua." (ZMM, emphases Arlo's)
>
>
>
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>



-- 
parser