[MD] the sophists

[Andre Broersen]

Bodvar to Andre:

Am I allowed to speak ?

Andre:
Of course you are!

Bodvar:
If Pirsig's presentation of the MOQ is "from a static perspective" because it is conveyed by language, how would a dynamic presentation be carried out?

Andre:
If you equate 'static presentation' only with 'language'(in a dismissive tone) then I think this is a very narrow equation. All I am suggesting is that Mr. Pirsig's presentation of the MOQ in language does not convey its 'essence' alone and 'WHAT language conveys'( as you say) is, in the way that Mr. Pirsig uses it, not 'anything'... there is much more going on and your (and Platt's ) failure to appreciate this (as told-you-so by Mr. Pirsig himself in the Annotations)leads you to make claims and do things to the MOQ that block its full appreciation.

About the 'dynamic presentation' dmb has already referred you to the relevant (classroom) passages in an earlier post.

Bodvar:
No, this about language as the intellectual level and language as the static bad wolf is a blind alley, its rules may be static, but WHAT language conveys can be anything.

Andre:
Hang on here Bodvar! Who claims that the intellectual level is language? This is one of your (many) readings into other contributor's interpretations which (quite simply) they do not have. They are yours and yours alone!

Bodvar:
My dictionary defines intellect correctly as the ability to separate what's
objective from what's subjective.

Andre:
Is this a discuss about your dictionary or about the MOQ?

Bodvar:
Frustration, yes, but my bias is for the MOQ and that makes even Pirsig a target when he errs ... by embracing  William James. He (James) may have "attacked SOM" as DMB says, but his attack led
nowhere.

Andre:
His 'attack led nowhere' is a bit lame and crude Bodvar. Seems to me that you are frustrated because the MOQ does not quite fit your interpretation of it.

Bodvar:
I know what empiricism means, but have no idea how the radical kind differs from the ordinary.

Andre:
dmb has made this difference very clear in some recent posts ( I do hope you read his contributions!) but, as (again) dmb has pointed out to you in another post) your MOQ has no DQ! This I conclude as well if you do not know the difference.

Bodvar:
I fully accept a dynamic, immediate, undifferentiated .... whatever, but
this did not furnish material for reflection. According to ZAMM it
furnished SOM,...

Andre:
You know that I do not share this interpretation/argument.

Bodvar:
Well, here you go again. The MOQ says most non-abstract that there
is the DQ and its SQ levels. The "Quality/MOQ" is a disaster because
it starts an eternal regress of "moqs". If the MOQ is a abstraction
because of being conveyed by language, then the utterance that
Quality is outside the MOQ is also an abstraction .. and so on. Drop
this silliness.

Andre:
And here YOU go again. You seem to fail to grasp the 'Quality' idea and the abstracted/derived patterns of VALUE from this Quality idea.
Quality can only be experienced pre-intellectually. Quality is prior to language, prior to conceptualizations, prior to distinctions of any kind.For goodness sake Bodvar: the MOQ does not 'contain' Quality. Quality HAS the MOQ!

Bodvar:
Why the latter-day Pirsig wanted to tune down SOM's importance (as springboard to the MOQ) I don't
understand.

Andre:
Because SOM is not the 'springboard to the MOQ'. This is your view.

Bodvar:
Well, this was a new twist, In "Lila's Child" and the PT letter Pirsig
didn't  speak of any critical (if you mean skeptical) manipulation of
symbols,  but if you mean using language in a critical/skeptical way
regarding social value I agree. THAT is exactly what intellect's purpose
was and still  is.

Andre:
I stand corrected here Bodvar. The term Mr. Pirsig uses is 'skilled' manipulation of symbols. This does not detract from the point I was trying to make. The term 'skilled' (at the intellectual level!) denotes , for me, deliberate, reflective, purposeful, conscious. Nothing to do with 'Gods' or anything of that nature...just as some social patterns are intellectual some intellectual patterns are social (e.g. SOM) but only some. Most are truly intellectual as defined by Mr. Pirsig in Paul Turner's letter.

Bodvar:
An insight may arrive in mysterious ways, but it is always a problem
that triggers the dynamic solution. And it was SOM's paradoxes that
triggered the MOQ.

Andre:
I think you may have it arse-about here Bodvar: it is always DQ that 'triggers' the solution... and it was DQ that 'triggered' the MOQ. You really are dismissing Mr. Pirsig's own experiences!! He says it came to him 'dynamically!!!) How far do you go to defend your SOL argument? It really is beyond me.Mr. Pirsig makes a case for radical empiricism. direct experience as he experienced it!(the term 'radical' is unfortunate but it is done to separate itself from the SOM interpretation of experience). It does not recognize Quality...remember?

Bodvar:
It was not INTELLECT that provided the Q solution, it was Intellect-as-SOM's problem that triggered the dynamic process.

Andre:
Again you are defying the validity of Mr. Pirsig's experience as he is relating it to us. Dualistic thinking cannot change of itself. The change must come from outside of itself, from other sources of thought (which you totally exclude). As Mr. Pirsig suggests, it requires more thought or rather, to stay within the MOQ: absence of thought. The source of thought is Dynamic Quality!

I have great difficulty in accepting your defiance of Mr. Pirsig and his presentation of the MOQ as contained in ZMM, LILA,LC, SODV, DVD's and interviews and a whole lot more.

Time for a beer!