[MD] Moq_Discuss Digest, Vol 67, Issue 72

Fri Jun 17 02:18:08 PDT 2011

-original message-
Subject: Moq_Discuss Digest, Vol 67, Issue 72
From: moq_discuss-request at lists.moqtalk.org
Date: 17/06/2011 08:23

Send Moq_Discuss mailing list submissions to
	moq_discuss at lists.moqtalk.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	moq_discuss-request at lists.moqtalk.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	moq_discuss-owner at lists.moqtalk.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Moq_Discuss digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. Re: The Meaning of Life (X Acto)
   2. Re: The Meaning of Life (Dan Glover)
   3. Re: Free Will (Ham Priday)
   4. s (MarshaV)
   5. Re: Free Will (MarshaV)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 16:35:10 -0700 (PDT)
From: X Acto <xacto at rocketmail.com>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] The Meaning of Life
Message-ID: <668353.92352.qm at web114604.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Dave,
Go back to the original letter to Edith.

I have always thought that it has made the most applicalbe sense in
a basic matter of fact sort of way to the audience you are aiming at.

Very straight to the point.

Quality in writing.

Can't miss.

-Ron

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 23:06:17 -0600
From: Dan Glover <daneglover at gmail.com>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] The Meaning of Life
Message-ID: <BANLkTingrh64E0b3i18uX0xUXci3jXPmYw at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Hello everyone

On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 10:25 AM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Calling all MOQers:
>
> My thesis advisor is teaching an introductory philosophy this fall, the theme and title of which will be "the meaning of life". He has invited me to teach one of the classes on Pirsig's work, as a kind of guest lecturer.

Dan:

Pretty awesome, Dave. Congratulations!

dmb:
> He asked me to select a passage or section to be included on the syllabus as a reading assignment for the students. I picked chapter 16 and 17 of ZAMM. (This is the part with the classroom scenes wherein Phaedrus is trying to get his students to realize that they know what Quality is even though it can't be defined.)

Dan:

Yes, these are good chapters. I'd stress the mountain-climbing
allegory myself, as I have in some of my own writings. Teaching seems
such a tricky business. I should think the (Quality) teacher must
tread a very thin line between guidance and allowance. And the
narrator seems to know that too.

>dmb:
> To help the students see what to look for and think about when they read the assignment, the syllabus will provide a few clues and thematic questions. The clues for the ZAMM reading will go like this: "Robert Pirsig says that definitions are the foundation of reason, that we can't reason without them, and yet he refuses to define the central term in his argument. Despite the fact that you can't say exactly what it is, "Quality" is the goal of every creative person and without it life would hardly be worth living, he says. What is Pirsig saying about the relationship between creative intelligence and getting an "A" in life? What does he say about following the rules and seeing for yourself?"

Dan:

Yes, dogmatic inflexibility is something to focus upon. Art and
creativity follow no set patterns even though the artist must be aware
and master those patterns. I think you could look at my exchange with
Mark is an example. Mark doesn't understand creativity. He thinks
there must be some motive behind art... be it money, fame, whatever.
He is locked into what I see as some kind of weird mindset but to him
it seems perfectly normal. Maybe it is the result of his
education/indoctrination... something a teacher of Quality must be
aware of and guard against.

>dmb:
> Why am I telling you this? Because I'm shamelessly fishing for ideas. (Maybe I should have gone fishing before picking the passage and writing the clues.) These two chapters present the MOQ's basic distinction between defined quality (static rules and principles and concepts) and undefined Quality but this is the first, concrete phase of his journey. He's not yet getting metaphysical or mystical. It's just about good writing and that's a good thing because we're talking about a basic, introductory course. On the other hand, the writing lesson is a kind of metaphor for life in general. It's about NOT being a slave to the rules. It's about NOT imitating or parroting. It's about the dull conformist with the thick-lensed glasses who learns to see for herself. It's about being soulful and sensitive and caring. It's about NOT being a square.
>
> Can you imagine how a student new to philosophy will react to these chapters without reading the rest of the book?

Dan:

The good students will be impressed enough to read the whole book
without being told. The average students will wonder about what RMP is
on about but won't bother doing any further reading unless told to do
so. The poor students will probably laugh at the assignment and do
just enough to get by. But they're the ones to watch for their
creative energy.

dmb:
What's a reasonable expectation in terms of their comprehension level?

Dan:
I would expect them to sit back and be told what to do. They've been
told what to do their whole lives. They know their places by now. They
have to be shown that they know better... that they know what Quality
is, even if they don't know that they know. They will be looking to
their instructor (you) for instruction. To properly teach Quality,
though, you as the instructor will have to let them figure things out
for themselves, even if you are tempted to jump in and guide them.
They have many years of indoctrination (education) to overcome.

As for their comprehension, I think the better students will look to
impress you with their knowledge. The average students will try very
hard but fail to really "get" what RMP is saying. And the poor
students won't give a damn. It is those students to pay attention to,
though.

dmb:
What sorts of questions will they ask?

Dan:
If we already know what Quality is, why are we here? Isn't it your job
to be telling us?

dmb:
What questions does the passage raise for you?

Dan:

Why the first phase of the journey is the happiest. I understand that
it is the creative energy that drives us forward in the beginning. But
why is it so hard to sustain that happiness and energy over the long
haul? Is it the self-doubt that invariably creeps into our thoughts
and dreams, telling us that we're making a mistake?

Why are so few people actively engaged in creativity? Why do they go
to work each day, doing the same job, with the same tired attitude,
until they are so tired and worn out that they can't do it any more.
Does the evil that destroys creativity live in the university? Or is
it more sinister? Does it live in our hearts and our heads?

Why do our family and friends frown on us striking out into something
new and uncertain? The analogy about the hostility that Jesus or Moses
would have faced today comes to mind... how their mental stability
would have been questioned... and seems pertinent to a student just
starting to discover what they want to do with their lives and how
best to do it.

dmb:
What's your favorite point or moment in those chapters?

Dan:

I like the ego-goal aspect that he talks about towards the end of
chapter 17. I recall having some discussions with John about this some
time ago and feeling rather frustrated that he didn't seem to see
things the way I did.

dmb:
 How would you answer the thematic questions and clues.
 What is Pirsig saying about the relationship between creative
intelligence and getting an "A" in life?

Dan:

You have to have a goal in life to work towards... getting an "A". Yet
to have a goal entails knowing the path so well that all creative
energy is lost.

dmb:
What does he say about following the rules and seeing for yourself?"

Dan:
The better a student follows the instructor's instructions, the better
grade they get. But they lose sight of their own individual nature and
creativity.

dmb:
Would you give different clues or pick a different passage, which
doesn't even have to be from ZAMM by the way.

Dan:

To me, ZMM is the more powerful of the two books. I think it is a good
choice for a course called "The Meaning of Life." Chapter 29 is so
good! How he talks about loneliness and how paradoxical it is to find
it most where there are the most people. Psychic distance, and how it
isn't technology that creates this so much as it is the objectivity it
breeds.

Like the welder who welded his chain guard... the man seemed unsure
whether the narrator was being honest with him about the work he'd
done. The man didn't realize that people notice things like that. To
him, it was just a job. Might be something a student just entering
life might be interested in exploring...

dmb:
 I had considered the part of Lila where he says that the intellectual
search for the meaning of life is really just a recent fad and is not
something the intellect is equipped to do, but I thought the classroom
scenes and the questioning of the whole university grading system
would be something that undergrads could relate to on a personal
level. You know, because it's about their present situation as
students who have to write papers.

Dan:
This seems like the right decision, yes. The way you put it though
makes it all seem so unappealing...

>dmb:
> Or maybe I should have picked all those "dirty" passages in Lila and hired an over-perfumed prostitute to join me as a visual aid. Darn! I think it might be too late to switch at this point.

Dan:

That, or you could really surprise them and cross-dress one day...
teach the class in drag. I bet that'd get their attentions. And give
them something really good to write their papers about too!

Good luck, and best wishes,

Dan

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 01:44:14 -0400
From: "Ham Priday" <hampday1 at verizon.net>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Subject: Re: [MD] Free Will
Message-ID: <5A9A4F835E664A418FE012E87C0FC88C at hamPC>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-1;
	reply-type=original

Steve --

> You didn't will yourself to not want to smoke which was
> what was required in the example I gave. Your value of
> smoking can be trumped by your value of personal health
> if you happen to value one over the other, but you can't
> will yourself to value one over the other. Either you do or
> you don't. You are not free to value smoking over your
> health if you actually value your health more than smoking.

I willed myself not to smoke cigarettes and pipes.  Must I give up cigars in 
order to satisfy your requirements for an example of free will?  There is 
more to will (intention) than simply responding to value.  For instance, it 
requires judgment to prioritize one's values, plus self-control to act upon 
them rationally.  I exercise free choice in both of these functions.  Don't 
you?

Steve:
> If you agree with me that "Man cannot will what we wants..."
> as you say above, then what does it mean to say that his will is free?
> Man wills things but saying that not only does he have will but
> that this will is also free doesn't seem to mean anything. All you
> are saying then is the obvious claim that man has preferences and
> acts on them.  These preferences often conflict and one preference
> often takes precedence over another in given situations. Where
> exactly does freedom come into this?

I can will to work out in the gym every day or not at all.  I choose to 
exercise in the gym once a week and supplement this with daily exercising at 
home.  I can will to correspond with people I don't enjoy talking with, to 
put off mowing the lawn when I don't feel like it, or to shop for a cinnamon 
bun rather than eating a Danish pastry my wife left for me.  Do you deny 
that I am free to make such choices?

But of greater importance to society at large are the moral values one acts 
upon.  Will the citizen cast his vote for a politican who believes in taxing 
the rich to support the poor?  Will the legislator approve a bill to 
legalize gay marriage, abolish capital punishment, or incorporate Sharia 
principles into common law?  Does the home owner whose mortgage is worth 
more than his devalued home simply default on his payments?  Does the 
physician who knows his patient is terminal end the suffering with a lethal 
drug?  The freedom exercised in such value-based actions affects all of us 
and can determine the course of our nation's history.

Weighty thoughts to ponder relative to Free Will, eh?

Freely speaking,
Ham

------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 02:07:49 -0400
From: MarshaV <valkyr at att.net>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: [MD] s
Message-ID: <F4E1C101-A56B-4026-BB78-077DFF1044ED at att.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

dmb,  

I think it is fascinating how different individuals will have different understandings based on their patterns and the dynamics of the situation.  And even though the range of the language that they use can be vast, I would not label any of it being stupid.  

Marsha 

On Jun 16, 2011, at 6:22 PM, david buchanan wrote:

> 
> Marsha said to dmb:
> 
> I'm sure you think your paraphrasing is always correct, but it is mentally constructed from your own biases.  And thergrouping together of your paraphrased comments out of context make them sound like attributes of DQ.  And please don't miss explaining your quote: "DQ degenerates into chaos." when in LILA RMP states: "But Dynamic Quality is not structured and yet it is not chaotic.".    I think RMP would have paraphrased this statement differently.
> 
> dmb responds with textual evidence to the contrary (not that it will make any difference):
> "Life can't exist on Dynamic Quality alone. It has no staying power. To cling to Dynamic Quality alone apart from any static patterns is to cling to CHAOS. He saw that much can be learned about Dynamic Quality by studying what it is not rather than futilely trying to define what it is.
> Static quality patterns are dead when they are exclusive, when they demand blind obedience and suppress Dynamic change. But static patterns, nevertheless, provide a necessary stabilizing force to protect Dynamic progress from DEGENERATION. Although Dynamic Quality, the Quality of freedom, creates this world in which we live, these patterns of static quality, the quality of order, preserve our world. Neither static nor Dynamic Quality can survive without the other."
> 
> What would be a good way to paraphrase Pirsig's description of static patterns as a necessary stabilizing force and the quality of order that preserves our world? You think this stable order is best "paraphrased" as an ever-changing cloud, do you? I think that use of language is just plain stupid and the idea conspicuously at odds with the text. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 		 	   		  
> 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

___

------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 02:23:21 -0400
From: MarshaV <valkyr at att.net>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Free Will
Message-ID: <430F852A-98AA-46FE-BB09-EE469CFF0646 at att.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

On Jun 16, 2011, at 6:22 PM, david buchanan wrote:

> 
> Marsha said to dmb:
> 
> I'm sure you think your paraphrasing is always correct, but it is mentally constructed from your own biases.  And thergrouping together of your paraphrased comments out of context make them sound like attributes of DQ.  And please don't miss explaining your quote: "DQ degenerates into chaos." when in LILA RMP states: "But Dynamic Quality is not structured and yet it is not chaotic.".    I think RMP would have paraphrased this statement differently.
> 
> dmb responds with textual evidence to the contrary (not that it will make any difference):
> "Life can't exist on Dynamic Quality alone. It has no staying power. To cling to Dynamic Quality alone apart from any static patterns is to cling to CHAOS. He saw that much can be learned about Dynamic Quality by studying what it is not rather than futilely trying to define what it is.
> Static quality patterns are dead when they are exclusive, when they demand blind obedience and suppress Dynamic change. But static patterns, nevertheless, provide a necessary stabilizing force to protect Dynamic progress from DEGENERATION. Although Dynamic Quality, the Quality of freedom, creates this world in which we live, these patterns of static quality, the quality of order, preserve our world. Neither static nor Dynamic Quality can survive without the other."
> 
> What would be a good way to paraphrase Pirsig's description of static patterns as a necessary stabilizing force and the quality of order that preserves our world? You think this stable order is best "paraphrased" as an ever-changing cloud, do you? I think that use of language is just plain stupid and the idea conspicuously at odds with the text. 
> 

Marsha:
I might state that progress may degenerate into chaos, or that static patterns may degenerate into chaos, or that an individual as a collection of static patterns may degenerate into chaos, but I don't think I would ever say that "DQ degenerates into chaos."   

___

------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Moq_Discuss at lists.moqtalk.org
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org

End of Moq_Discuss Digest, Vol 67, Issue 72
*******************************************