[MD] Stuck on a Torn Slot

[118]

Hi Horse,

On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 7:50 AM, Horse <horse at darkstar.uk.net> wrote:
> 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 new]
Then if I claim you are not following Quality as proposed in ZMM is
certainly not name calling.  From my perspective I am at a more
fundamental place, than subscribing to the need for levels
subordinating others.  That smacks of Truth.  It is one of many
possible analogies,  I think you would agree with that.  It is
important not to cage MOQ is as some want to do.  No, discussion is
not blather, it is discussion, that is what I am involved in, and it
doesn't help to say that it is either your way or the highway.  That
is Dogma.
>
>> [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 new]
Pirsig created analogies which you interpret as Truth.  By stating
that Quality is undefinable is defining it as such.  This is why
analogies are necessary.  The same is true with Buddhism.  I think you
would agree with this as well.
>
>
>> [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 new]
Then why are you so adamant on the level subordination?  This is not a
strawman approach, this is merely following your logic.  The
metaphysics is placed above Quality.  This is just how you present it.
 Perhaps I do not understand you, and you can explain it in another
way than saying that this is the way it has to be.
>
>> [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 new]
I only wish to have a discussion.  This does not help if you simply
state that I am wrong.  I am also trying to discuss a metaphysical
position, from the viewpoint of Quality.  If you stick to the
analogies as presented as the only way, then we will get very few who
subscribe to this position.  It will change as soon as some scientific
discoveries are made concerning the interaction of matter with energy.
 So, if you are not trying to force a rigid structure, we can
certainly converse on ideas.
>
>
>> [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 new]
This is a misinterpretation on your part.  It would appear that you
are creating a strawman here.  I do not disagree with virtually all
that he has said.  I am not sure how you came to this conclusion.  It
certainly was not from what I wrote.
>
>> [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 new]
The MOQ is a path towards Quality, nothing more.  If your path works
for you, then fine.  It is certainly not the only way.  Many cannot
travel down that path.  I think Pirsig agrees with this as
demonstrated by his own humility in the face of Quality.  You are
supporting the metaphysics as you read it.  My discussion is with you
not Pirsig.  I do not understand this deflection of one's own beliefs
to somebody else.  I am disagreeing with your position, and asking for
a rational explanation.
>
>> [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]
What is it about this path that you find better?  How, in your
opinion, is MOQ better than SOM?
>
>> [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.

[Mark new]
Yes, now we are getting there.  This is indeed a realignment.  MOQ is
an attempt at such.  Both sides are metaphysical, they are created by
the brain.  I am not sure what you mean by mystical.  I am not
trashing, I am encouraging discussion.  Where did this concept of
Trashing come from.  Certainly I did not propose it.  It sounds quite
demeaning to me.
>
>>> 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 new]
Expansion is my goal too.  Thus these discussions.  If we cannot
analyze premises, then we are speaking Dogma.
>
>> [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 new]
I am not at odds with Pirsig's position.  I am trying to find improved
ways of describing it.  If it were all clear, then we wouldn't be
having this discussion would we?  Pirsig uses analogies in Lila, as
such, they are not the only ones.  Why box MOQ in that way?
>
>> [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.

[Mark new]
By encapsulating, you are pointing to a description of Quality.  I
have not problem with that.  This is metaphysics, things need to be
described.  This is what analogies are for.  The evolutionary approach
does not mean dominance of one level over the other.  It means
transformation of one level to another.  I think this is rational, and
in no way diminishes 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 new]
My question was how can you say that I appear to be trying to change
it into something it is not?  You didn't answer that.  Pisig said a
lot of things, which one do you mean?
>
>> [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.

[Mark new]
OK, explain Pirsig's 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 new]
I would have to say that this discussion is a multivalent approach.
You are not in agreement with my rationality, I am not in agreement
with yours.  Yes, Pirsig did see Western acceptance as a goal.  I have
never said anything to the contrary.
>
>> [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.
>
[SNIP]
> [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 new]
I still do not see why you are saying that I am undermining Pirsig.
Did he say that I was?  If so, I would like to hear his reasons.
>
[SNIP]
>>
>> [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.

[Mark new]
Well touche.  My appearance at being dogmatic, is simply questioning
what you present.  Again, I do not see disagreement with the analogy,
I am proposing descriptive improvement which is based on growth from
the ground up.


> 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]
I appreciate the invitation to work in a complementary fashion.  I
believe that is what I am doing.  If you want to tell me that I am
wrong, then please explain rather than deflect.
>
>> [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.

I have not intention of discarding, just complementing.  Analogies can
conflict and still describe the same thing.  There is nothing wrong
with that.  Western logic may not allow it for now, but if MOQ keeps
growing, others will see it as a path, not as a Truth.
>

Cheers,
Mark
>
>
> 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
>