[MD] kill all intellectual patterns

[118]

Hi dmb,



I am heartened that you are willing to discuss Quality, or the "view
through Quality" which is what MoQ is about.



The talking points you present remind me of conversations I had in the
'70s, probably before you were born.  However I have no problem going over
that old ground if I can get an opinion from you.

On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 12:49 PM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>
wrote:





Mark said to dmb:



As far as I understand it, killing all intellectual patterns is a
suggestion for those who get stuck in the minutiae of MoQ and do not
address the big picture which is Quality.  It may be good advice for some.





dmb says:

Quality is already the center of the big picture and is central to all the
details of the MOQ. This is what I keep trying to explain, over and over
again.





Mark asks:  What do you mean by "central" please provide you opinion.



Dmb:

The problem, Pirsig says, is that "Reason and Quality had become separated
and in conflict with each other" back in the days of Plato. Plato had made
Quality subordinate to reason, to truth. The MOQ's solution is to reverse
that priority.



"Reason was to be subordinate, logically, to Quality."



First of all, you understand the Plato is brought in for rhetorical
purposes.  Pirsig in no way claimed to be an expert on Greek history, or on
Plato for that matter.  In fact, it can be said that Plato said many of the
same things that Pirsig does.  Unfortunately, his pupil Aristotle codified
the classification of everything.  It was known long before Aristotle that
the earth traveled around the sun.  However, due to the influence of
Aristotle, the West became “dumbed down” until the renaissance.  If there
is to be an evil character, it is Aristotle.  Plato like his teacher
Socrates was a mystic in the most forceful sense of the word.  I can of
course support this with quotes from both of those characters, but these
can be found using the internet



Mark: Yes, he does write that.  So, what does it mean to you?  I am not
asking you to quote Pirsig, but simply to provide your own interpretation,
so that we can discuss this (if you want).  If reason is subordinate to
Quality, how does this present the reasoning about Quality?  What does it
mean to be "subordinate".  To ask this another way, if reason, which is
logical, is “logically” subordinate to Quality, how is it then that logic
triumphs over Quality with this statement?



Dmb on Pirsig:

That's how Pirsig puts it in ZAMM but then you see this same solution in
Lila. The MOQ's pragmatic truth maintains that reversed priority so that
truth is within Quality and subordinate to Quality.



"That was exactly what is meant by the Metaphysics of Quality. Truth is a
static intellectual pattern within a larger entity called Quality."



The MOQ is a set of static intellectual patterns with Quality at its
center. The various attempts to dismiss reason, intellect, metaphysics or
otherwise undermine an intelligent discussion of the MOQ only serves to
show a basic lack of understanding. What sense does it make to kill all
intellectual patterns in this situation? None. It makes no sense at all. A
philosophical discussion group that discourages thought and speech? It's
absurd. It's daft.





Mark:  You make statements here without explaining your opinion.  If
Quality is at the "center" of reason, what does this mean?  Are you placing
Quality within reason, or outside of it?  Or is reason a form of Quality?
Perhaps you can give your own personal opinion of what Quality is.  If you
do not want to due to ignorance, that is fine too.  But please do not quote
Pirsig, you are a thinking person, not a scribe.  What does Quality mean to
you, (there are no wrong answers)?.



The killing of intellectual patterns is meant to wake one up.  Surely you
can see this from the manner in which Pirsig presents it.  It is meant to
show that no matter how much reason is created, Quality cannot be
approached in that way.  If this is daft to you, you are still asleep.
Quality is not the sum total of MoQ, in fact, as Pirsig warns, MoQ is
degenerate since it provides false promises.  Any philosophical discussion
must therefore view MoQ as a model which attempts to lead one towards a
view through Quality.  It makes absolutely no sense to dwell on the
specifics of MoQ as if the answer lies therein.  This is why I wonder why
you quibble about finer points from Lila and do not address the big
picture.  It is like avoiding thinking about a forest by walking through
the trees.



For many, Reason is seen as an answer.  It should have been made clear to
those who read ZAMM, that reason is best as rhetoric.  The purpose of
rhetoric is to provide awareness, not to expound on truths.  The manner in
which you keep quoting Pirsig, is as if you are presenting unquestionable
truths.  You can present as many quotes from Pirsig as you want, but that
still does not make you profound.  It is time to leave Pirsig behind and
think for yourself.



As I have said many times, Pirsig could have used a large variety of models
by which to present Quality.  In fact many models have been presented over
the milenia, as Pirsig points out.  We cannot use his model as the "final
solution", for such a thing is exactly against what Pirsig means by Quality.
At one point I asked you why you felt the levels were important in terms of
presenting Quality.  As you did not answer, I assumed you had not thought
about this yet.



If we want the same thing, that is to make Quality a mindset for successive
generations, then we must go about presenting it in the best way.  Just
like the constitution is amended, MoQ can also be amended.  It is not
written on sacred tablets.  It is but a starting point.



Regards,

MoQ



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