[MD] Waving goodbye to particles

[John Carl]

Greetings Arlo,

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 1:58 PM, ARLO J BENSINGER JR <ajb102 at psu.edu> wrote:

> [John]
> So which choice is better for designating the MoQ? Arlo says artifact.
>
> [Arlo]
> Of course, to make this accurate you'd have to include that
> "artifact/process"
> in Arlo's view are interwoven, the "artifact" is never permanent, and the
> "process" does not occur without artifacts. Sounds like we are talking DQ
> and
> SQ, doesn't it? We are.
>
John:

Of course, all this is only an analogy, but yeah, I'd go along with that.  I
think there are important distinctions between DQ and processes, but for the
most, that's a good way of approaching it.

But my point then about the MoQ being specifically open-ended and receptive
to evolution, means that it explicitly leans toward the process/DQ aspects,
rather than the SQ/artifact side.



Arlo:



> The Metaphysics of Quality is a stable pattern of values emanating from
> Pirsig's initial inquires and evolving and informing discourse in an active
> process of dialogue.
>
>
John:

"Active process" is the key here.  As are the terms "evolving", "inquiring"
and "informing".

These terms illustrate my point about the most apt label for what you term
"stable pattern of values"  And I really wonder at that "stability".  I
think if we take the MoQ as an artifact, it's failings, as Krimel and Dave T
have pointed out (and Bo, for that matter) outweigh it's strengths.

But if taken as a process, then it's failings ARE its strengths, for it's
weaknesses invite discussion and improvement, and that's the only way a
metaphysical system can even be deemed valid, in my opinion.

And Kierkegaard's.  And Ellul's.  And Socrates. And Pirsig's. And Rorty's.

The list grows.

Arlo:


> The pursuit of Quality, perhaps, is the DQ/process end of this, and it is
> from
> this process that we see stable "waves" of value patterns spreading out in
> its
> wake. Again, though, these aren't just "left behind" to sit acontextual and
> "outide" for all time. They are an inseparable part of the evolutionary
> process.
>

John:

If by this you mean that aspects of the MoQ are stable, static artifacts, I
agree.  But taken as a whole, I see the entire thing as a process.  An
active wave-like phenomenon that some of us surf, and some of us get rolled
and squashed by.



> [John]
> Arlo's problem as I see it, is that  even a wave becomes virtually  an
> artifact
> when conceived or abstracted  as a thing.
>
> [Arlo]
> Then you don't read Arlo's posts.
>
>
John:

Ah, but I do, Arlo.  Every word.



> [John]
> My  "particular" problem with Arlo's artifactual process, is that any
> "thing"
> thusly enclosed by definition, becomes too static.
>
> [Arlo]
> And any process devoid of producing static patterns of value becomes too
> chaotic to last.
>
>
John:

Of course.  But as I said, there is a value to proper descriptive labels and
the best label for the MoQ as a whole, is a process, not an artifact.

Arlo:


> "Definitions" are ALWAYS evolutionary, ALWAYS changing, and sometimes the
> change is slow and sometimes it is long, but "permanence" is just an
> illusion
> along the way.
>
>
John:

Tell that one to dmb, who seems to think all definitions are neatly
encapsulated by academics and bequeathed to their kind via wiki and SEP.

Arlo:


> The problem I see with YOUR view :-) is that definitions are "whatever you
> want
> them to be", can be this, can be that, who cares, hey, we don't want to be
> "too
> static". And this is fine if you are simply grooving on Quality. But a
> "Metaphysics of Quality" is an attempt to create at least a fairly stable
> pattern of value describing "Quality". If that ain't your thing, that's
> cool.
>

John:

I see definitions as primarily processional also.  Meaning is derived from
conversation, resolutions of paradox and the attempt at clarification.  When
I understand a term's definition and use that definition in discourse, my
use is open-ended.  The evolution of  Meaning takes two to come to agreement
and this is a potentially infinite process.  Which could be construed as
chaotic, but the belief in Quality, almost I could say, faith in Quality's
existence, means that I believe there comes a point in every dialogue where
enough interpretation has occured that we 'get" each other.  How many
mirrors do we need?  Just enough.



Arlo:


> I'm beginning to think you too are confusing the Metaphysics of Quality
> with
> "Quality itself".
>
John:

I don't think so.  I think I've offered enough clarification of my view in
this post to make my understanding, understood.  But by all means, if you
still think this, point out where I err and I shall always be glad to
continue along the continuum of 'infinite process of interpretation" till we
both have 'peace of mind".

That little exposition of sculpting a rotisserie that Pirsig uses to
illustrate the importance of 'peace of mind" in ZAMM, really says it all.




> [John]
> And since the MoQ explicitly deals with this problem, creatively and in
> novel
> format, then it MUST be a process.
>
> [Arlo]
> Well, I'd say "philosophy" is the process here, John, the books and ideas
> produced by Pirsig are stable patterns of value emanating from this
> process,
> part of it, reinforming it, evolving all the time. Heck, you could say
> "metaphysicing" is the process, and I'd agree. "Thinking", now there's a
> process.
>
>
John:

I've posted some relevant quotes about Kierkegaard's analysis of most
philosophers and their history of artifactual "systems".  How he says, the
whole history since Socrates has been a sham, since only Socrates actively
listens.  What I've learned of Rorty from Matt also jives with this
viewpoint, and I'd say it's not the common view.  Here's one of my favorite
passages cut from somewhere I can't remember, but very relevant to this
discussion:

-------------

As Pirsig put it "what guarantees the objectivity of the

world in which we live is that this world is common to us with other

thinking beings. Through the communications that we have with other

men we receive from them ready-made harmonious reasonings. We know

that these reasonings do not come from us and at the same time we

recognize in them, because of their harmony, the work of reasonable

beings like ourselves. And as these reasonings appear to fit the world

of our sensations, we think we may infer that these reasonable beings

have seen the same thing as we; thus it is that we know we haven't

been dreaming. It is this harmony, this quality if you will, that is

the sole basis for the only reality we can ever know." Pirsig says

that this sort of intersubjectivity is the only basis knowledge

claims. Rorty obviously agrees.

-----------------

Arlo:


> Again, process and artifact are entwined to be dialogically inseparable.
> But
> this is the whole DQ/SQ thing in a nutshell. What you are really saying is
> that
> the "MOQ" is DQ.
>
>
John:

I think the distinction between process and artifact is a useful distinction
to be made and admittedly a creative and constructive choice.  Which is the
BETTER term to slap on the MOQ is what we're discussing, and my argument
before you stands as given.

Arlo:


> And I am saying, to that, that again you are confusing "Quality" (the
> undefinable) with SQ emanations from its wake (in this case, a high-quality
> intellectual pattern of value.)
>
> At this point I should restate too that I prefer Ant's (I think it was his
> term) use of "stable patterns of value" over "static". "Static" does imply
> permanence and "fixedness", where "stable" implies something that can, and
> does, evolve and change.
>
> [John]
> A harmonious wave of understanding, that it's adherents use to surf unto
> higher
> understanding.  When you hit the beach, you swim out again.
>
> [Arlo]
> A harmonious wave of understanding (SQ), that it's adherents use to surf
> unto
> higher understanding.  When you hit the beach, you swim out again (pursing
> DQ).
>

John:

Thanks for the opportunity to process this Arlo, you old artifact you.  I
think I'll sunbathe a bit and reflect on it some more and watch the bikinis
walk by for a while.