[MD] Plato's Good

[118]

Hi Tuukka,
Thank you for your response.  I agree, we are treading in difficult
areas here since we are limited by language to discuss such
limitations.  However, there are ways around that as you show by way
of analogy.  More below.

On 5/9/12, Tuukka Virtaperko <mail at tuukkavirtaperko.net> wrote:
> Mark,
>
> Mark:
>
>> With due respect, nothing can be encapsulated into a definition.
>
> Tuukka:
> I like this opening of discussion, but the discussion it opens is not an
> easy one. It would have something to do with differentiating romantic
> quality and Dynamic Quality. This difference is by no means included in
> the canonic MOQ, with many people saying RQ is simply a prototype of DQ.

Yes, this is true, the problem is no different from the one you are
trying to tackle.
>
> To begin, I ask - are the things you hear different from the things you
> see? In other words, can you differentiate between visual and auditory
> perceptions?

>
> It's extremely likely that you feel you are able to do so. Yet, you
> cannot *define* the difference between something you hear and something
> you see, because the difference between those things is not classical,
> ie. not a dialectical entity. In this sense, we are unable to
> encapsulate any experience into a definition.

Yes, this is true.  There is no direct connection between the physical
and our personal perception.  All perception must be treated as a
third person, and the perceiver cannot be addressed through such
techniques.  No different from trying to find the Self through logical
means.  However, as you say below, given that we do have conventions,
and the five senses being one of those, we can create an understanding
of the differences between such perceptions even though such a thing
cannot be proven at the personal level.  This is no different from
assuming that my "red" is the same as your "red".  I see things and I
hear things, and I think you know what I mean, so it is a good
convention.
>
> Yet we are able to use words to differentiate between hearing and
> seeing, and we very rarely make mistakes when doing so. In this sense,
> we are able to "encapsulate" auditory and visual perceptions to
> dialectic capsules, that help us tell one from the other. The
> metaphorical notion of "encapsulation", that Pirsig uses in ZAMM, is
> likely to mean this latter sort of encapsulation - as otherwise Pirsig
> would end up opposing all definitions. Thus he would definitely oppose,
> for example, logic and mathematics, which are not only unreasonable to
> oppose, but which Pirsig occasionally seems to revere.

Yes, I agree with that use of encapsulation.  As you know, however, it
is when the encapsulation takes on a life of its own which is distinct
from a manner of interacting, that we have the "definitions" problem.
Words are only words.  Go to China and listen to people speak, that
will give you a good idea of what words are; a bunch of noises.
>
> In ZAMM, the notion that Quality must not be encapsulated into a
> definition, seems to indicate an understanding of the existence of
> Dynamic Quality, which Pirsig, however, had not yet introduced properly.

I believe that Pirsig cautions against definitions so that we do not
fall into a trap of believing that Quality IS the definition.
However, most of us are beyond that.  This is why I say that we have
the Philosopher's Stone in terms of being able to discuss and define
these things.

Dynamic Quality is meant to offset Static Quality.  Both of these
terms are used in order to express awareness in common language.  In
order to understand something, one must understand what it is not.  Of
course neither Dynamic nor Static Quality exists beyond our usage of
them.  I believe this is introduction enough.  However, that is just
the introduction.
>
> You seem to be suggesting, that because words are usually references to
> referents, and because the reference is separate from the referent,
> nothing can be encapsulated into a definition (= reference). You seem to
> justify this suggestion with the argument, that in order for a reference
> to be able to refer to the referent, the reference has to be identical
> with the referent. In other words, the reference and the referent would
> have to be the same thing. But if this requirement were met, why would
> we speak of "encapsulation" or "references" and "referents"? After all,
> we could not differentiate between the reference and the referent, or
> the "capsule" and the "contents of the capsule"!

Words are references to understandings.  We create the referent in
such a paradigm.  There is no referent to refer to.  Therefore, you
are correct; there is no difference between the referent and the
reference.  For example, when I say "tree" I am bringing forth my
understanding of tree.  It may be very different from your
understanding of "tree".  However you are able to use that word within
your understanding so that we can communicate.  If I go up to a tree
and touch it and say “tree”, then you will know what I am talking
about by both an auditory and visual cue, but you still have no idea
what is going on in my head.  So you “objectivize” what I am saying
into the tree I am touching.  But what is going on in my head is not
the tree.  That is just a symbol.

You mention the conundrum of why we do certain things even if the
logic is faulty.  We do these things because they work for
communication.  We do these things because they are effective.  If it
works, we do it.  All of this points to Intent.  From Intent comes all
else.  Intent is another word for Quality, and neither mean anything
beyond our personal understandings of such words.  Such understanding
grows the more we discuss these things.
>
> Suppose you have a capsule that contains some medicine. The outer shell
> of the capsule encapsulates the contents of the capsule. The contents
> are what we want. The outer shell just helps us to ingest them instead
> of spilling the powder all over the place. As you can see, the outer
> shell is not identical with its contents. That doesn't mean the outer
> shell were empty, or would not contain the contents.

I thought you were using capsules as a metaphor.  Certainly the
capsule and its contentsare different, but that is not what we are
discussing.  We are discussing what defining something means.  So far
as I can tell, if we define something and then make that something
into the definition we created, then we will lead life in a misguided
manner.  This is what MoQ cautions against.  However, if we use
definitions so that we can discuss Quality and share ideas, this is
completely different.  The problem is that when somebody writes a book
with all sorts of definitions in it, those who like to parse language
and argue will find some defect in the definition.  Every definition
is full of defects, and pointing these out does not prove a damn
thing.  Pirsig does not want some neophyte to come by and say "But you
said that Quality was this and this!"  To do so would miss the whole
point of MoQ.  So he leaves it open to our own discovery.  He cannot
tell us what Quality is, nor should he try.  That would be
self-destructive.  This is shown by the quote at the beginning of
ZAMM.
>
> Pirsig wrote that encapsulating Quality is impossible. If, by that, he
> had meant that Quality is different from the word "Quality" (the
> capsule), he would still not have managed to differentiate Quality from
> dogs, motion, emotions and so on. He would also have ended up opposing
> all definitions and all static quality. But even the canonic MOQ is way
> too analytic that this interpretation would be congruent with it. If
> that was what Pirsig meant in chpt 29 of ZAMM, it stands out as a non
> sequitur when associated with the rest of Pirsig's work.

The point of rhetoric is to draw distinctions.  How a word is said is
as important as what the word means.  You could hear the same thing
from two different people and come away with a different
understanding.  This is one of the tools of politics and law.

You know perfectly well that Quality is different from a dog.  If you
are looking for a "proof", then you will not find one since every
proof is based on God Given assumptions and circular logic.

Pirsig understands the manner in which definitions are used by the
majority of people.  As such, he had no problem with static quality
being defined "for the purposes of rhetoric".  I don’t think you can
use common logic to combat simple rhetoric.  Logic depends on Knowns;
rhetoric depends on Convincing.  One is science, the other is music.
Don't you feel more afraid when some scary music is playing in a
horror movie?  There is no logic as to why you should, but it works to
convince you that it is scary.

So, I wouldn’t ascribe to Pirsig's writing the idea of "canonic work".
 It was never meant to be.  His books are food for thought.  View them
as being placed on the beach in some exotic resort so that you can
think about exotic things.  The books take you there, but do not tell
you how to think.
>
> It's much more likely that Pirsig meant that Quality cannot be put into
> a capsule - not that a capsule containing Quality would be separate from
> its contents. This way, when saying that Quality cannot be encapsulated,
> Pirsig did not mean that romantic quality cannot be encapsulated, but
> that Dynamic Quality cannot be encapsulated. However, he had not yet
> formed the proper concept of Dynamic Quality.

Pirsig did not want any definition of Quality to be confused with
Quality.  He did not want somebody to take his Quality capsule and by
swallowing it understand all about Quality.  This is not something one
can simply educate oneself on to understand it.  It is not some pill
that we can take to become all knowing.  Even the division between DQ
and SQ is not entirely clear as I have presented in previous posts.
We sit around and argue about levels as if that really matters.  They
are just analogies to a building, or some kind of video game.  Yet,
there seem to be these pac-men chewing up every word he says hoping
that the answer is there.  Both his books are questioning.  That is
what the word "Inquiry" means.  He is asking questions, not giving
answers.  If he gave Quality a definition, that would not be an
inquiry, it would be another text book.
All just my opinion, of course.
Thanks,
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
>