[MD] A fly in the MOQ ointment

[skutvik at online.no]

Mary, DMB, All

21 March. DMB  wrote:

> About six years ago a guy named Paul Turner gathered a bunch of
> quotes just like you. Except he gathered the quotes that show
> Pirsig's intention to expand rationality. Paul thought these quotes
> were enough to disprove Bo's position even without explanation. I
> think he's right about that. Take a look and see if you don't agree.

I have never denied that Pirsig has said many things, it is the false 
assertion that he unequivocally is an anti-SOList that Mary's post has 
disproved, and moreover she has showed that the part of his 
teachings that really counts is solidly SOL-centered. Paul Turner - um - 
turned silent after the letter from Pirsig and he now runs a blog that 
even exceeds Matt's and DMB's exchange in inscrutability which is the 
only way to proceed if not the MOQ is accepted on its own terms and 
one tries to include it in academical philosophologism.       

Besides none of these quotes are very convincing, I will return with
an analysis later.

Bodvar























> Hi all, especially Bo This post is a response to Bo´s assertion that
> his SOLAQI fits better with Pirsig´s previous writing than the
> definitions given in Lila´s Child and correspondence, particularly
> Pirsig´s statement that the MOQ is also an intellectual pattern.
> This post is simply a series of excerpts from ZMM and one from Lila
> which require no commentary from me other than to say that
> rationality is clearly part of the intellectual level and that SOM
> is described here as traditional, conventional rationality. I think
> this series of quotes show that Pirsig conceived of the MOQ as a
> "root expansion" of rationality and, as such, is also part of the
> intellectual level.  



> "Phædrus spent his entire life pursuing a ghost. That was true. The
> ghost he pursued was the ghost that underlies all of technology, all
> of modern science, all of Western thought. It was the ghost of
> rationality itself." 



> "To speak of certain government and establishment institutions as
> "the system" is to speak correctly, since these organizations are
> founded upon the same structural conceptual relationships as a
> motorcycle. They are sustained by structural relationships even when
> they have lost all other meaning and purpose."
>  "But to tear down a factory or to revolt against a government or to
>  avoid repair of a motorcycle because it is a system is to attack
>  effects rather than causes; and as long as the attack is upon
>  effects only, no change is possible. The true system, the real
>  system, is our present construction of systematic thought itself,
>  rationality itself, and if a factory is torn down but the
>  rationality which produced it is left standing, then that
>  rationality will simply produce another factory. If a revolution
>  destroys a systematic government, but the systematic patterns of
>  thought that produced that government are left intact, then those
>  patterns will repeat themselves in the succeeding government.
>  There's so much talk about the system. And so little
>  understanding." 


> "Our current modes of rationality are not moving society forward
> into a better world. They are taking it further and further from
> that better world. Since the Renaissance these modes have worked. As
> long as the need for food, clothing and shelter is dominant they
> will continue to work. But now that for huge masses of people these
> needs no longer overwhelm everything else, the whole structure of
> reason, handed down to us from ancient times, is no longer adequate.
> It begins to be seen for what it really is...emotionally hollow,
> esthetically meaningless and spiritually empty." 


> "One can see how both the informal and formal processes of
> hypothesis, experiment, conclusion, century after century, repeated
> with new material, have built up the hierarchies of thought which
> have eliminated most of the enemies of primitive man. To some extent
> the romantic condemnation of rationality stems from the very
> effectiveness of rationality in uplifting men from primitive
> conditions. It's such a powerful, all-dominating agent of civilized
> man it's all but shut out everything else and now dominates man
> himself. That's the source of the complaint." 



> "What's emerging from the pattern of my own life is the belief that
> the crisis is being caused by the inadequacy of existing forms of
> thought to cope with the situation. It can't be solved by rational
> means because the rationality itself is the source of the problem.
> The only ones who're solving it are solving it at a personal level
> by abandoning 'square' rationality altogether and going by feelings
> alone. Like John and Sylvia here. And millions of others like them.
> And that seems like a wrong direction too. So I guess what I'm
> trying to say is that the solution to the problem isn't that you
> abandon rationality but that you expand the nature of rationality so
> that it's capable of coming up with a solution."
>  "We're living in topsy-turvy times, and I think that what causes
>  the topsy-turvy feeling is inadequacy of old forms of thought to
>  deal with new experiences. I've heard it said that the only real
>  learning results from hang-ups, where instead of expanding the
>  branches of what you already know, you have to stop and drift
>  laterally for a while until you come across something that allows
>  you to expand the roots of what you already know. Everyone's
>  familiar with that. I think the same thing occurs with whole
>  civilizations when expansion's needed at the roots." "The whole
>  Renaissance is supposed to have resulted from the topsy-turvy
>  feeling caused by Columbus' discovery of a new world. It just shook
>  people up. The topsy-turviness of that time is recorded everywhere.
>  There was nothing in the flat-earth views of the Old and New
>  Testaments that predicted it. Yet people couldn't deny it. The only
>  way they could assimilate it was to abandon the entire medieval
>  outlook and enter into a new expansion of reason." "Columbus has
>  become such a schoolbook stereotype it's almost impossible to
>  imagine him as a living human being anymore. But if you really try
>  to hold back your present knowledge about the consequences of his
>  trip and project yourself into his situation, then sometimes you
>  can begin to see that our present moon exploration must be like a
>  tea party compared to what he went through. Moon exploration
>  doesn't involve real root expansions of thought. We've no reason to
>  doubt that existing forms of thought are adequate to handle it.
>  It's really just a branch extension of what Columbus did. A really
>  new exploration, one that would look to us today the way the world
>  looked to Columbus, would have to be in an entirely new direction."
>  


> "Like into realms beyond reason. I think present-day reason is an
> analogue of the flat earth of the medieval period. If you go too far
> beyond it you're presumed to fall off, into insanity. And people are
> very much afraid of that. I think this fear of insanity is
> comparable to the fear people once had of falling off the edge of
> the world. Or the fear of heretics. There's a very close analogue
> there."
>  "But what's happening is that each year our old flat earth of
>  conventional reason becomes less and less adequate to handle the
>  experiences we have and this is creating widespread feelings of
>  topsy-turviness. As a result we're getting more and more people in
>  irrational areas of thought...occultism, mysticism, drug changes
>  and the like...because they feel the inadequacy of classical reason
>  to handle what they know are real experiences." "Analytic reason,
>  dialectic reason. Reason which at the University is sometimes
>  considered to be the whole of understanding. You've never had to
>  understand it really. It's always been completely bankrupt with
>  regard to abstract art. Nonrepresentative art is one of the root
>  experiences I'm talking about. Some people still condemn it because
>  it doesn't make 'sense.' But what's really wrong is not the art but
>  the 'sense,' the classical reason, which can't grasp it. People
>  keep looking for branch extensions of reason that will cover art's
>  more recent occurrences, but the answers aren't in the branches,
>  they're at the roots." "A motorcycle functions entirely in
>  accordance with the laws of reason, and a study of the art of
>  motorcycle maintenance is really a miniature study of the art of
>  rationality itself." 


> "Now I want to show that that classic pattern of rationality can be
> tremendously improved, expanded and made far more effective through
> the formal recognition of Quality in its operation." 


> "It's long past time to take a closer look at this qualitative
> preselection of facts which has seemed so scrupulously ignored by
> those who make so much of these facts after they are "observed." I
> think that it will be found that a formal acknowledgment of the role
> of Quality in the scientific process doesn't destroy the empirical
> vision at all. It expands it, strengthens it and brings it far
> closer to actual scientific practice." 



> "I think the basic fault that underlies the problem of stuckness is
> traditional rationality's insistence upon "objectivity," a doctrine
> that there is a divided reality of subject and object. For true
> science to take place these must be rigidly separate from each
> other." "When traditional rationality divides the world into
> subjects and objects it shuts out Quality, and when you're really
> stuck it's Quality, not any subjects or objects, that tells you
> where you ought to go."
>  "Phædrus went a different path from the idea of individual,
>  personal Quality decisions. I think it was a wrong one, but perhaps
>  if I were in his circumstances I would go his way too. He felt that
>  the solution started with a new philosophy, or he saw it as even
>  broader than that...a new spiritual rationality...in which the
>  ugliness and the loneliness and the spiritual blankness of
>  dualistic technological reason would become illogical. Reason was
>  no longer to be "value free." Reason was to be subordinate,
>  logically, to Quality." 



> "The Metaphysics of Quality says that science's empirical rejection
> of biological and social values is not only rationally correct, it
> is also morally correct because the intellectual patterns of science
> are of a higher evolutionary order than the old biological and
> social patterns. But the Metaphysics of Quality also says that
> Dynamic Quality - the value-force that chooses an elegant
> mathematical solution to a laborious one, or a brilliant experiment
> over a confusing, inconclusive one-is another matter altogether.
> Dynamic Quality is a higher moral order than static scientific
> truth, and it is as immoral for philosophers of science to try to
> suppress Dynamic Quality as it is for church authorities to suppress
> scientific method. Dynamic value is an integral part of science. It
> is the cutting edge of scientific progress itself." 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search, chat and e-mail from
> your inbox.
> http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID27925::T:WLMT
> AG L:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:032010_1 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
> 
> 
>