[MD] A problem with the MOQ.

[Tuukka Virtaperko]

Ant,
I don't remember who said it - maybe Pirsig - but the pencil is mightier 
than the pen. I do occasionally make mistakes. I'd love to write 
everything down in a flash of insight, but given that I spend several 
hours per day on these MOQ forums, I'm not at my best all the time. I 
simply made a mistake earlier. Let's take a look at it.



>
>
>
>> Tuukka:
>>
>>
>> The ZAMM way of perceiving reality can be thought of as inappropriate in
>> the sense that it has the romantic-classic split as the primary division
>> of the Metaphysics of Quality. That opening does not work for the
>> purpose of explaining American Indian mysticism. This does not entail
>> the SOQ are inappropriate, because in the SOQ, the Dynamic-static
>> division is fundamental. But unlike LILA, the SOQ does not simply omit
>> the romantic-classic split. Instead, it expresses that split as a
>> secondary division of the MOQ by splitting static quality to romantic
>> and classic quality. The absence of Dynamic Quality is the greatest
>> shortcoming of ZAMM, but it does not prevent attaching ZAMM's MOQ to
>> LILA's MOQ as a module.
>
> Ant comments:
>
> Maybe not but have you ever thought why Pirsig did not do a similar exercise himself?
>
> You see if you were going to "shoehorn" romantic and classic quality into the MOQ (of LILA), I think the static patterns would be considered as forms of classic quality while romantic quality correlates to the Dynamic.  You then read Pirsig's examples in LILA of American Indian mysticism and the Zuni brujo and then realise the static-Dynamic split is, more or less, a refinement of the
> classic-romantic division of ZMM.
>
> Having said this, I do like the (1960s) notions of hip and square personalities found in ZMM; the "classic" square personality correlating to someone dominated by intellectual patterns while the "romantic" hip personality is someone dominated by aesthetics i.e. the Dynamic.  But again , where does the mystic personality fit into this classic-romantic division or someone (following the goal suggested by ZMM) who tries to reconcile the classic and romantic together?


Tuukka:
This is not yet my mistake. If romantic quality were Dynamic Quality, 
what does Pirsig mean by saying that the American Indian looks for 
Dynamic Quality INSTEAD of romantic quality when fasting? I have no 
objection to the claim that Dynamic-static is a refinement of 
romantic-classic, but they are still not the same thing. However, it's 
true that they are strikingly similar.

The mystic personality does not fit into the classic-romantic division. 
That's why we need the Dynamic-static division. But the Dynamic-static 
division is not ruined it we add the classic-romantic division as a 
subdivision of the static. That addition is irrelevant for the purposes 
of explaining American Indian mysticism, but it's relevant for 
discussing other things, such as the hip and square personality types.


>
>
>> Ant earlier:
>>
>> Tuukka earlier: He presents the approaches as interchangeable, just like polar
>> coordinates and rectangular coordinates are interchangeable. Neither one
>> is a "proto-map": both are proper maps.
>>
>> Ant earlier: No, that's well, well off line. At the beginning of LILA we see how Rigel gets the better
>> of Phaedrus because the latter doesn't have an "MOQ catechism" (for want of a better word)
>> to refer to. Much of LILA is devoted to introducing and building up such a catechism.
>>
>> Regarding the example of polar and rectangular coordinates (in Chapter 8 of LILA), you're
>> ignoring the important point just beforehand about seeking the "highest quality intellectual
>> explanation":
>>
>> 'One doesn't seek the absolute "Truth." One seeks instead the highest quality
>> intellectual explanation of things with the knowledge that if the past is any
>> guide to the future this explanation must be taken provisionally; as useful
>> until something better comes along.'
>>
>> LILA contains a better MOQ than ZMM. To ignore this critical fact is
>> just going to undermine the intellectual value of your SOQ.
>>
>>
>> Tuukka:
>>
>> Okay, you are right in that LILA's MOQ is better than ZAMM's MOQ, and in
>> that sense, they are not "interchangeable". Sorry that I expressed
>> myself badly.
>
> Ant comments:
>
> Tuukka, I think that was a little more than expressing yourself badly. You clearly stated: "In LILA [Pirsig] states, that although the ZAMM way of perceiving reality is correct, he is just going to use a different approach in this book."
>
> As we can see in the above quotes that you cited (from Chapter 8 of LILA), Pirsig simply doesn't say that.  It gives the  impression that you were consciously misleading the reader in order to justify your pet project for how it stands now instead of actually re-assessing exactly what you're doing (regarding the SOQ) and why you're doing it.   
>
> Or am I just getting cynical in my old age?!
>
> Ant
>
>
>


Tuukka:

To be honest, if I had succeeded in doing what I claim I have done, 
there's no way the community could accept that as true just like that. I 
am not surprised by being doubted.

Pirsig says: "Unlike subject-object metaphysics the Metaphysics of 
Quality does not insist on a single exclusive truth." I said: "In LILA 
[Pirsig] states, that although the ZAMM way of perceiving reality is 
correct, he is just going to use a different approach in this book."

Please observe the difference between "being correct" and "being 
better". Even SOM is "correct" in the sense that it is what Pirsig would 
call "a truth". This is because metaphysics is used to define truth - 
hence, there is no context in which a metaphysics could be proven as 
"incorrect", except by placing it within the context of another 
metaphysics. But that would just beg the question, because then we could 
ask is the other metaphysics correct.

According to Pirsig, even SOM is "a truth", but it's a worse truth than 
the MOQ. But I was making a mistake in another part. The mistake was, 
that for the purposes of explaining American Indian mysticism, SOM, ZAMM 
and LILA are not "interchangeable", like I said. Only LILA is suitable 
for that purpose, because the concept of Dynamic Quality is necessary 
for that.

Pirsig implies that right here:

"When an American Indian goes into isolation and fasts in order to 
achieve a vision, the vision he seeks is not a romantic understanding of 
the surface beauty of the world. Neither is it a vision of the world's 
classic intellectual form. It is something else. Since this whole 
metaphysics had started with an attempt to explain Indian mysticism 
Phaedrus finally abandoned this classic-romantic split as a choice for a 
primary division of the Metaphysics of Quality."

I used the word "correct" as a substitute for the word "truth", but that 
was an ambiguous choice of words, because we could also define "correct" 
as "appropriate for a specified purpose". Explaining American Indian 
mysticism is a specified purpose, and in that context LILA is correct 
and SOM and ZAMM are irrelevant, and as such, incorrect as choices for 
the only method to be used.

Best regards,
Tuukka