[MD] Stuck on a Torn Slot

[Horse]

Hi Mark

On 06/12/2010 05:41, 118 wrote:
> [Mark]
> With all due respect, Horse, you started the name calling by claiming that I did not follow the MOQ as it was supposed to be.  Now I could be equally dismissive and state that this is what I am coming to expect from you.  But I won't go there because it would not add much to the discussion and make it deteriorate into the typical MOQ blather.

[Horse]
Claiming that you aren't following Pirsigs MoQ is not name-calling. 
Given many of your statements it is no more than a statement of how I 
see your position. To accuse me of name-calling is a distraction and a 
low quality statement on your part.
Is discussion of MoQ just blather to you? It's not to me or to the 
majority on this list.

> [Mark]
> So, tell me, what did Pirsig say?  As I recall he placed Quality above Truth.

[Horse]
AFAIR Pirsig placed Quality above everything. He also constructed the 
basis of a metaphysics. In his metaphysics he placed Social patterns as 
subordinate to Intellectual patterns, Biological patterns as subordinate 
to Social patterns and Inorganic patterns as subordinate to Biological 
patterns. He also stated that Quality is undefinable. Do you disagree 
that he did so and that this is his position?


> [Mark]
> By stating that I have an upside-down view, you are placing Truth above Quality.  I think this is obvious.

[Horse]
It's your interpretation - not my words. If you criticize a position I 
don't hold your are taking a strawman approach.

> [Mark]
> Pirsig provides some depictions of Quality, but he would be the first to say that they are
> analogies and not to be taken literally.  I do not understand why some are trying to force a rigid structure on MOQ.  This was not the intention as described by the antagonism towards false notions of Plato in ZMM.  I do not see how you can see it otherwise.  The spirit of Quality is exactly against what you are trying to do.

[Horse]
I don't agree. We are supposed to be discussing a metaphysical position. 
I am not trying to force a rigid structure on Quality. Again you are 
misinterpreting what I am saying, and at times it would appear that this 
misinterpretation is deliberate in order for you to criticise a position 
I do not hold. I may be wrong in this assumption but this is how it appears.

> [Mark]
> I could easily put you into an analogy that would make you look somewhat foolish, but I will not do that.

[Horse]
Again, more misinterpretation. The film analogy was to illustrate not 
demean. Trying to make me look foolish would say more about you than it 
would about me given that I am trying to have a rational conversation 
with you. It would also be a very bad move on your part.

> [Mark]
> I will stick to logic.  I am supporting Pirsig with all my heart.

[Horse]
When you make statements which directly contradict what Pirsig is saying 
I find it difficult to believe this is the case. How do you support 
someone by disagreeing with virtually everything that they have said.

> [Mark]
> These structures that you are creating are the opposition.  Again, I do not see how you can proclaim a truth concerning Quality.  This is not in the spirit of Quality.

[Horse]
I am proclaiming a truth about a metaphysical position (MoQ) not about 
Quality. Big difference. MoQ is a static intellectual pattern and truth 
statements (which X is better than which Y) can be made about it without 
demeaning Quality. Additionally the metaphysical structure I am 
supporting was created by Pirsig, not me. In disagreeing with Pirsig's 
position it would appear to be you that is creating the opposition.

> [Mark]
> What Pirsig presents in his texts are analogies.  This is clear from ZMM when he was closer to his awakening into Quality.  You are using Pirsig's words as if they are proclaiming some kind of truth.

[Horse]
Pirsig IS proclaiming some sort of truth - and this is why he chose to 
employ a metaphysical approach. Just because truth is subordinate to 
Quality does not mean that some truths are not better than others. Truth 
is an intellectual pattern of value. Pirsig sees SOM as a problem and 
chooses to provide a better truth - MoQ. As a metaphysical position I 
support what Pirsig is trying to do.

> [Mark]
> This is the wrong approach, such is the Western approach that we are trying to get away from.  Pirsig's original ideas are presented by Phaedrus in ZMM.  It was these revelations that pulled the rug right out from under him.  I followed a similar path for a while, but had a number of other books that I could subscribe to as well that were along the same line.  It was an Eastern approach that Pirsig was trying for, that is
> why he uses Zen in the title.  I am not deviating from Pirsig.  In fact, I am staying closer to the original intent of Quality.  I don't subscribe to this structure as if it were something true.  It simply has Quality.

[Horse]
Then why did Pirsig choose to employ a form of truth (metaphysics) to 
expound upon Quality. If he had wanted a purely eastern approach he 
would have gone that way. I believe that Pirsig's project is an attempt 
to re-align the metaphysical (western) and the mystical (eastern) 
approach to understanding. Any attempt to trash one in favour of the 
other is certainly against the aims of his project and is not supportive 
of it.

>> As I said, I am merely restating Pirsig's view of Quality as laid out in his books and comments. But again you are making inferences and, apparently, constructing strawmen.
> [Mark]
> Well, Horse, this appears to me to be the stance that a lot of supporters of MOQ use.

[Horse]
Because that is the approach that Robert Pirsig set out - if we are to 
discuss his metaphysics it makes sense, to me at least, to start that 
approach from the authors original position and expand from there. Not 
to trash a major part of the project.

> [Mark]
> If you are just following orders from the text, how does MOQ advance?  I have not interest in construing strawmen.  I am stating Quality the way I have seen it for 25 years.

[Horse]
Here's the nub of the problem then. If you are stating Quality as you 
seen it and not as Pirsig sees it (as per MoQ) then you are not 
supporting Pirsigs position, as you claim, but your own position which 
seems to be at odds with Pirsigs position.

> [Mark]
> Way before Lila.  Lila is an analogy.  If you want to create some kind of structure from the top down, then go ahead.  Such a thing is Platonism; some truth that we are trying to fit into.  This is exactly what Quality was against.

[Horse]
Didn't Pirsig create both a top-down approach and a bottom up approach?
The first states that Quality/Experience is split into DQ/SQ then SQ is 
broken down into 4 sets of patterns.
The second is an evolutionary approach starting from Inorganic patterns 
and requiring emergence.
He also provided a way of encapsulating the whole structure (from either 
perspective) within Quality.

>> [Horse]
>> Pirsig is attempting to expand rationality with the MoQ. You appear 
>> to be rying to change it into something it is not.
>>
> [Mark]
> How can you say that?

[Horse]
I am merely stating what Pirsig has said. The MoQ is his attempt to 
expand rationality. His words not mine.

> [Mark]
> What I have presented is rational.  I think it is you that is changing Quality into something that it is not. Remember that Pirsig has to go back to the Sophists to find his answer.  This was before modern science, before modern psychology, before there was any understanding of biology, or any study of sociology except for maybe a few books.

[Horse]
I didn't say you weren't being rational. As I see it, you just aren't 
taking on board Pirsigs expanded rationality.

>> [Horse]
>> If you have your way the MoQ will disappear into obscurity because it 
>> will have little support and less acceptance. I also don't believe it 
>> will be just another Western philosophy as it opposes many of the 
>> current philosophical positions that exist. There's also the problem, 
>> with your statement, that it was primarily intended for a western 
>> audience - but with many subtle twists.
> [Mark]
> I understand the need for acceptance.  This is why we try to bridge it with other paradigms such as those which come from physics, biology, sociology, philosophy, and common sense.  The worst thing to happen would be that MOQ is simply engulfed by Western Philosophy as another variation.

[Horse]
So if Pirsig didn't see western academic acceptance as one of his goals 
why did he take a metaphysical route. And why has he provided so much 
support for both Ant McWatt and DMB. A multivalent approach seems a 
better way than a monovalent approach. You appear to be supporting the 
latter. Are you?

> [Mark]
> The basic philosophy that you are proposing is a top down control, this is Western.  Eastern philosophies are based on growth and change.  You have to admit that Quality is a very different way of looking at things, that goes against much in Western Philosophy.  If we make it reasonable, people will come.  Right now this forum is more preoccupied with bringing in recent Western Philosophers than going back to the Sophists.  This is a mistake in my opinion.

[Horse]
My take on Pirsigs metaphysics is a bottom-up approach. Evolution and 
emergence. Growth and change. Always has been. I can also see the merits 
of a top down approach. Both within a Quality framework. I don't see any 
of these as mutually exclusive. I see them as complimentary and 
contextually supportive.

> [Mark]
> I read ZMM many times, I have a feel for his viewpoint, especially when he became incapacitated.  Pirsig is a smart guy, it had to take a lot for him to lose all meaning in the world.  This is what became the Quality approach.  It is not just an extension of our philosophy as it stands.  I cannot emphasize this enough.  It is a completely different perspective, you cannot look at it though the traditional Western lens.

[Horse]
Metaphysics is western approach. And yet, despite your protestations, 
this is still the route that Pirsig chose. To undermine and/or ignore 
this aspect of Pirsig is to undermine his whole project.
I'm not saying (and never have) that Quality is not part of the project 
- far from it. I think that Quality is THE central theme. And the part 
that we are discussing is metaphysics. Where is the problem in 
discussing both, rather than trashing a major part of the project.


>>> [Mark]
>>> I do not think we are quite ready to start forming different schools like
>>> the Sophists did quite yet.  Such a thing would be destructive and not
>>> worthy of Quality.
>> [Horse]
>> Then why do you insist on taking the MoQ and changing it until it no longer resembles anything that Pirsig constructed in the first place.
> [Mark]
> I think I have explained what I have been doing above.  I am staying true to what Pirsig went through and creating a construction to bring people in, it is not dogma.

[Horse]
Well, to be honest, you appear to be awfully dogmatic about the veracity 
of your own approach. In disagreeing with major sections of Pirsigs work 
(such as the Static Quality aspect of the MoQ) you are taking away from 
the overall project not enhancing it.
By working in a complementary fashion more will be achieved than 
focussing on a single level approach. There is room (as Pirsig 
envisioned) for multiple approaches which complement and support each other.

> [Mark]
> Thank you for your patience.  This is a difficult subject.  One cannot simply step into it by following some sentences.  It takes a radical change in viewpoint.  There is a break which takes it away from traditional logic.  Pirsig has done his best to try to get others there with his analogies.  I like the notion of spiritual rationality;
> this would be a different kind of rationality.  In the late '70s there were many people who got it.  It is experiential not necessarily a logical progression of ideas.

[Horse]
Or both! Experience as reality, along with both a top-down and bottom-up 
approach. As long as we don't confuse them why discard what is useful? 
And Pirsig obviously thought rationality to be a valid part of his 
project or he wouldn't have included the means to expand on traditional 
rationality. Multiple approaches in harmony is more radical than 
focussing on one at the expense of the other.

> [Mark]
> I hope my tone is not taken wrongly.  I am very passionate about this, and it may shine through in the wrong way.  How about if we get away from the generalities and get into some details?

[Horse]
I thought we tried that! And didn't get very far. If you can accept that 
there are a number of ways of approaching Pirsigs ultimate goal then, 
yes, we may come to an overall unified understanding. Something that 
would be very helpful though would be to address what I say and not what 
you want me to have said. Analogies are fine - strawmen not so much!

> [Mark]
> Quality is more like music than it is about logic.  I can not logically state why I like certain types of music, I cannot encase that experience into some kind of structure of control.  Music is growth.
>
[Horse]
Music has many aspects, both static and dynamic. But ultimately it is 
about Quality - as are all arts and sciences. How we approach it depends 
on our ultimate goal. Musicians with different skills, knowledge and 
experience can co-operate to produce great beauty and harmony - or you 
can end up with dissonance.


Horse


-- 

"Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid."
— Frank Zappa