[MD] Waving goodbye to particles

[John Carl]

Greetings, Arlo.


I'll try and make up for my tardiness with depth.


hey.  don't sue me if I fail. I said, 'try".




On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 10:18 AM, ARLO J BENSINGER JR <ajb102 at psu.edu>
wrote:

[John]

For if the MoQ is primarily artifactual in nature, as you claim, then there
is

a good reason for those voices of rejection and disappointment that have
been

heard on this list.  As a given metaphysical system, it has holes, I'm sure.


[Arlo]

Sure it does, as this is why/how it evolves. Its a stable pattern moving

towards "betterness", through dialogue, exposure to other thought systems,

contextualization, etc.  "The Metaphysics of Quality" is what we categorize

those stable patterns emanating from Pirsig's initial pursuit of Quality,
his

attempt to formalize and define what Quality IS.


John:


I really think there is a distinction that needs to be made here.  Pirsig's
pursuit of Quality, became his attempt to formalize, what a 'Metaphysics" of
Quality IS.  Not Quality itself.  His metaphysics would have as a drive, a
creationary force behind it, a sorta 'faith", if you will, in Quality itself
- AS undefinable.


But that doesn't preclude him from making the best metaphysics possible, OF
Quality.  Mebbe I should start abbreviating it 'mOq" so you'll get this
point, which I'm having difficultly hammering into your head.


My problem is, all I have are words.  Mebbe i should use sharper and heavier
words.  mebbe that would help.


There is an obvious and necessary distinction between  M and Q, in the MoQ.


Sorry.


mOq.




[John]

But if it is primarily processional in nature, as I claim, then it's
weaknesses

and inadequacies are open invitations to improve it, to make it better and
to

actively keep it evolving.


[Arlo]

John, this is the nature of ALL intellectual patterns. They are ALL in

continual and evolutionary negotiation. "The MOQ" is not unique in this
regard,

it is the fundamental nature of intellectual patterns.




John:


I disagree vehemently.  But then, I believe you are so wrong, partly because
you don't have a very good understanding of what an "intellectual pattern"
really is.  And how could you?  You don't have Bob in your very pocket, to
tell you these things, all you have is your own brain and the input of
others, and that's hardly enough to solve such a tremendous problem, eh?


*I* could tell you, of course.  But what good would that do?  I'd be just
another babbling voice in sea of babbling voices.  I have no social
recommendation to add weight to my opinion.


And nobody else even has a clue.


You're stuck, Arlo.  You're definitely stuck.


Of course all intellectual patterns are evolutionary in essence, Arlo.
duh.  But are all of them self-avowedly so?  Are all of them on this level
of awareness?


I mean, classically, a metaphysician tries to solve the great questions of
existence, for all cases, and all times.  They build systems.  Systems and
systems of systems.



And sure, they're nice enough in their own way.  But do they really all
involve, the knowing of their own evolutionary demise?  That SQ must always,
ALWAYS die, that dq can have her way?


I dunno.  I think the Moq is pretty unique in this regard.  Not totally, of
course.  But there are very few other sophisticated intellectual patterns
that are so self-aware of intellectual evolution.  Most tend to define and
cling and defend, exclusively.


That I've observed anyway.


[Arlo previously]

(1) ALL intellectual patterns are equally dynamic, they are ALL evolving

dialogically



[John]

That's the equivalent of saying that all intellectual patterns are equally

valuable.


[Arlo]

?? Not at all. Some persist, some fade away. But the point is that ALL

intellectual patterns are equally built upon dialogic-evolutionary ground.


John:


I like the "??" you start your response with.  At least you KNOW you're
puzzled. :-)


Let's distinguish here between "dynamic" and DQ.  I can see you've been
seduced a bit by the moronist section, and think that Chaos is Quality, but
there is a distinction to be made between an transcendant pull against
entropy on ALL levels, and "dynamic' in the sense that , shit happens.


The fact that this evolutionary narrative occurs within the matrix of a
dialogic-evolutionary grid, I'll bite.  I'll admit it as a playing ground,
and a valid one.  In that sense I agree, that all intellectual systems are
somewhere on the continuum, and I'll add that I feel the MoQ is the closest
to DQ of all I've surveyed.  But who knows, I'm a youngster, metaphysically
speaking.  A mere kindergardner.


But honestly, I think the very value of Pirsig's MoQ, is that it is
accessible to simple-minded guys like me.  I have the hubris to assume that
*I* get it.  And if that makes me a cult member in Krimel's eyes.  So be
it.  I like him anyway.


Even if he is a stinkin' moronist.


Arlo:


As this moves forward, higher-quality patterns tend to "persist" longer,
they may

not change as rapidly at certain points in the historical dialogue, and some

may feel "entrenched" , but Pirsig's ideas are no more or no less open to

Dynamic Quality than any other intellectual pattern out there.



John:


Of course I agree.  But again I point out that my position rests upon the
MoQ's ability to deal with this fact, by umm.. the "right" cleavages and
understandings of the relationship between the SQ of today (itself) and the
DQ of tomorrow.


See... what I believe is that even as individuals are social creations, in a
way.  So to are social creations, actual individuals.  And individuals, all
individuals, care about self-preservation.  Self-preservation is SQ - the
perpetualtion of existing patterns.  Openess to DQ, is the same as openess
to dying.  And that's a tough sell for most any religious or philosophical
system in the world.  They all wanna just keep going, and going, and going -
as they are.


KILL ALL INTELLECTUAL PATTERNS - as a mantra, is kinda unusual for a
metaphysics.  Not completely alone, mind you.  There's enough concordance
with "perenial" arisings, to confirm to me that this is the way to go, even
if it is in the minority.



[Arlo previously]

2) the voice of the author does not hinder this, but it encourages it


[John]

The voice of the author has many functions, some helpful, some hindrance.


[Arlo]

The author's voice is simply one more voice in the dialogue, admittedly very

often a respected and trusted voice, but how on earth do you think an author

clarifying or supporting what HE thinks hinders a dialogue where other
people

are doing the same?



John:


Because what "HE" thinks gets so idolized that it shuts off discourse.
Because what "he thinks" changes from day to day, like all of us, and the
problem is Arlo, like I pointed out already, I believe.  Pretty soon you
need to find out what he thinks about what he thinks about what he thinks,
and I think he'd rather hear what you think.  It's boring to talk to oneself
all day.


Arlo:


No, this "Papal Bull" nonsense is itself the only "bull". I read people
because

sometimes the offer insights that I hadn't thought of, and other times I
reject

what they say.


I mean, why is Bo's voice valuable to the evolution of Pirsig's ideas, but

Pirsig's voice would be a hinderance? Do you really think people would not
be

critical of what Pirsig says? Would YOU not be?


John:


Ok, first off, what I want, and what I see as good are two different
things.  Of course I'd love bob's active and open participation in our
dialogue.  And this is gonna sound strange to you, but I idealize it, and
conform to it "as if" and thus I have it.  So it's not an unmet desire on my
part.


But I can hear your frustration, and I'd like to help, but I don't know if
what I'd like to do, is the best thing.  See?


As to the first part, why I see Bo's voice as valuable to the evolution of
the MoQ, is because there is a big problem in perception, on the part of the
listeners/learners of the MoQ, and Bo's voice helps to clarify and signify
those problems.


In a weird way, I'm starting to see you as having the same problem of
perception as Bo, thinking that Quality = The MoQ or all that nonesense.



[John]

But more to the point, there is probably no such thing in the whole world as
a

truly "stable" pattern.  And this is even moreso with intellectual patterns.


[Arlo]

This was my point.


John:


Hey!  Mine too.  But the knowing of the ways of knowing is the trick.
Meta-jumps to new awareness, as it were.


Meme-memes..




[Arlo]

No, John, its pragmatically more useful to think of a tree as a stable
pattern

of value and the evolution towards Quality as the process.



John:


No arlo, it's more pragmatically useful to think of a tree as the source of
ten-thousand clubs and axe-handles, perfectly formed for pounding on the
heads of stubborn academical goofballs who don't listen.


kidding, kidding, but my point is:


Pragmaticism lies in the hands of the wielder.  A useful tool, by Hitler's
brownshirts or dmb, whoever wields it best.


Arlo:


The Metaphysics of Quality is a stable pattern emanating from this
intellectual

pursuit of Quality.


John:


Well, I don't know about your "emanating".  I think Ham would agree with me
that you're leaving out the agent responsible for this emanation, when you
put it like that.  Neither the MoQ nor the theory of gravity were lying
around waiting to be discovered.  They are both human creations, after all.



[John]

And I certainly don't agree that other metaphysical systems are equally

open-ended to their own evolutionary growth.


[Arlo]

What? You are focusing on a voice rather than the dialogue. I know of very
few

metaphysical systems that are not continually changing, being renegotiated,

argued for and against, adapting or failing.


John:


Well, I've given enough explanation, I think, I don't need to keep
belaboring the point.  If you can't hear words, mebbe i should try the
axe-handle after all.


kidding, kidding.



Arlo:


The larger dialogue is the entire metaphysical edifice of human thought, of

which Pirsig's ideas are a PART, a voice in the ongoing dialogue, said in

response to what others have said in the past, and anticipating what others
may

say in response in the future.


John:


Absolutely.  I agree completely.



[John]

But a metaphysics is sometimes more than a mere definition. The MoQ is such
an

one.


[Arlo]

I disagree. The Metaphysics of Quality is not more than it is, it points out
to

something more, for sure. But "it" is a map. A tool. A guidebook. Ideas

expressed about the nature of reality that run counter to the dominant way
of

looking at things.



John:


A self-referential map, done in an intelligent way.  I wish everybody could
read and understand the point of Royce's refutation of Bradley's main
contention about the inability to conceptualize the Absolute, because then
the conception would have to include that which was conceiving and on and
on...  The ole' Aristotleian impossibility, as it were, and uses a life-size
map of england, laid over england in one-to-one correspondence, INCLUDING
itself , for the map of england contains this big map of england, see, and
the map must take account of that map by showing it on the map.  And on and
on it goes.  But infinity is a mathematical concept, and as such is usefully
conceptuable and manipuable, and thus there is no true problem when you keep
your logic straight and accept an infinite series as a conceptual entity.


But for your statement, I say yes, it's a guidebook.  And a guidebook is a
process, for it shows you how to do, step by step.  And if you wanna call
that process an "artifact", fine.  I'll give in.


you semantic hero, you.


But for the other stuff, you're gonna have to deal with still.


Unless you don't wanna.  That's fine too.




[John]

It's not just an intellectual exercise, but claim to try and do more than

merely be a correct artifact in philosophological academe.  The MoQ is also

about saving the world from SOM


[Arlo]

You mean its a Superhero!? And here I thought it was Pirsig that wanted to

rescue the intellectual level from the dominant "SOM" paradigm, and his
ideas,

the Metaphysics of Quality, is an intellectual tool he crafted to do just
that.


John:


And the difference between "rescue the intellectual level from the dominant
"SOM" paradigm' and  'being a superhero",    is???