[MD] kill all intellectual patterns

[118]

Hi Arlo,

On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 9:40 AM, ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR <ajb102 at psu.edu>
wrote:

[Mark]
DMB has completely objectified what MoQ teaches.

[Arlo]
You mean what Pirsig teaches? The MOQ is Pirsig's teachings. If anything, I
suppose, you could condemn Pirsig for 'objectifying' Quality into authoring
his metaphysics, but he himself responds to that charge in LILA.

What we are here to do is to gain precision and clarity, to better
understand what it is that Pirsig had said. At that point, you can agree,
or you can disagree, but this is not 'objectification' (unless you're also
stuck in the SOLAQI rut).



Mark:

No, I mean what MoQ teaches.  Pirsig, time and again in Lila warns against
the objectification of Quality.  I don't think I need to point that out.
Despite this, what he uses as analogy is presented as truth.  I fully
understand what Pirsig has said, and I disagree with dmb's claim that
Quality cannot be discussed.  Pirsig would disagree too since he discusses
Quality in two books.  dmb's approach to Quality is very strange.  He seems
afraid to discuss it, yet he discusses the metaphysics of such as if it is
about something else.  There seems to be a weird disconnect there, in my
opinion.  It is as if he does not know what Quality is.



When Pirsig presents Quality as "undefinable", all he is saying is "do not
confuse the metaphysics for Quality".  This does not mean he did not write
two books about Quality.  Could you explain to me what dmb's position is on
Quality?  He certainly does not want to tell me.



When I refer to dmb's objectification, I refer to his use of quotes from
Pirsig as if that proves anything.  I can interpret such quotes in a very
different way than dmb, since I come from the viewpoint of Quality.  I do
not find dmb's very revealing except in some Aristotelian fashion.   When
dmb interprets MoQ, he does so in a completely literal fashion, which means
he has mistaken MoQ for Quality.  I don't know how else to explain this,
but perhaps you understand where I am coming from.  If you disagree, then
please explain why.  If you are just going to complain about me, then don't
waste your time.


[Mark]
He has classified everything in Aristotelian fashion.  This is exactly what
MoQ is against.

[Arlo]
The Buddha rests just as comfortably in intellectual patterns as it does in
social, biological and inorganic patterns. What DMB is pursuing, and I
commend him for his patience, is excellence in this intellectual endeavor.
He is pursuing what someone here referred to as 'spirationality'
(spirirationality?). Pirsig is hardly against clarity and precision in
thought, and I could not imagine him agreeing that his ideas are someone
against 'intellect' (in fact, he does not).

And, to be accurate, it is Pirsig who has proposed the particular
'classification' schema we are here to discuss (DQ/SQ[IBSI]).



Mark:

Well, I hope you are right, but I certainly do not see this in dmb's
writing.  It seems that Pirsig was not clear enough for dmb to understand.
MoQ is a presentation of a manner of using Quality to interpret reality.  I
have no idea what dmb’s MoQ is about.



Yes, Pirisg did present the DQ/SQ.  However, what dmb does is make an
object/object paradigm of it.  He presents DQ as some thing.  He speaks of
the pre-intellectual as being DQ.  This has absolutely no meaning in the
way he presents it.  DQ is not an objective phenomenon, but dmb wants to
make it into such.  This is why I say he views Quality through an objective
paradigm.  This is standard for the academic view, but it is limited.  He
seems to have no sense for the subjective, and only complains when this is
pointed out to him.



But let me ask you, Arlo, how would you describe DQ?  Please be rational in
your description.  Again, if you are just going to whine, don't waste your
time.


[Mark]
However, the Western academic approach is exactly what Phaedrus was
fighting against.

[Arlo]
Pirsig has called for a root expansion of what 'reason' entails. Certainly,
he condemned not just the 'Western academic approach', but the entire
Western culture (which includes social, economic, political and scientific
practices). You are (small wonder) using his condemnation of an
SOM-infected Western culture to single out and attack academia. But the
idea, of course, is to expand our understanding of and within these
practices, to reform them to be sure, but not hold them in perpetual
villainy. To do so is to miss the problem entirely.



Mark:

Please explain to me what you mean by SOM.  So far as I can tell, this is a
DQ/SQ analogy.  On one side we have the objective, and on the other side
the subjective.  How is the West infected by this?  Please answer this in
your own words so that I can see what you interpretation is.  Quoting
Pirsig will not help me.  I am still trying to figure out what Bo means by
SOM.  He also makes not sense to me.



What Pirsig is condemning is the complete objectification of reality.  That
is why he brings in DQ.  The manner in which you present Pirsig's
condemnation has no value.  What do you mean by Western Culture?  You use
phrases that add no substance to your claim.  What is it about scientific
practices that Pirisg does not like?  Why is he fond of presenting quantum
mechanics?  Obviously you are confused by what Pirsig is against.  Pirsig
is not trying to create a social or political revolution.  That would be
complete nonsense.



How about you, Arlo, can you explain more precisely what Pirsig is
condemning?  The manner in which you throw out words is rather
unrevealing.  But please only explain Pirisg if you want to discuss MoQ.



Arlo:
In fact, Pirsig's endeavors have included the efforts to 'get into' the
Academy. Obviously, he himself values those efforts. He has worked with
both Ant and DMB to bring clarity and elaboration to his writings and
ideas. Of course, no one, let alone Pirsig, has argued that the
intellectual efforts of the academy are all there is. Pirsig sails. I'm
sure Ant and DMB both also pursue Quality in 'non-intellecutal',
'non-academic' endeavors. I (try to) play guitar (much more before the
accident).



Mark:

If Pirsig has indeed tried to bring clarity through the use of academia,
the why do neither Ant or dmb discuss Quality, which is the foundation of
MoQ?  I will continue to ask both of these fellows what it is that they
present has to do with Quality.  It does not seem that they know.  They do
not seem to realize how viewing reality through a Quality paradigm changes
everything.



If indeed Pirisg valued Ant and dmb's efforts would he not continue to
mentor them and assist in their work?  Can it be that he fears that they
have misunderstood?  Pirsig sees the world as Quality, do they?  If they
do, then why do they not write about it as Pirsig did?  Why are they simply
content to paraphrase the examples and analogies that Pirisg used?  These
are honest questions.  Since you seem to know the minds of these guys,
could you respond in a civil manner?


[Mark]
This is a metaphysics OF Quality, not a metaphysics of SQ. ... What
happened to DQ?

[Arlo]
This is problematic rhetoric. It would make sense to say this is a "SQ of
DQ", that's what a metaphysics is, SQ. DQ, analogously, brings the
excellence and value to constructing these intellectual patterns as
elegantly, clearly, precisely and artfully as possible.



Mark:

Well Arlo, you are no better than Ant and dmb in your understanding of
Quality.  There is nothing problematic in the rhetoric, it is how it is
interpreted that is problematic.  SQ is used to teach of DQ.  It provides
the paths to travel towards such awareness.  You are echoing the old claims
that we are stuck in SQ with no escape.  You know this is complete
nonsense, and Pirsig provides an escape.  If there is a spiritual
rationality, don't you think it would give good understanding of DQ?  Spiritual
rationality is something that can be used to interpret Lila, you should
give it a try.



If DQ "brings" these things, how does this work?  Are they "brought" in a
basket?  Could you provide a rational argument for this bringing?  Just be
logical, if you can.


[Mark]
Lila was not meant to be a treatise on politics or society.

[Arlo]
On the contrary, that is precisely what is was meant to be, and IS.
"Quality" is not some abstract entity 'out there', it IS politics and
society and economics and science and entertainment and religion and
culture and customs, it is ALL these things. What LILA does is place these
things in a hierarchical level, so that some patterns have a moral
superiority to others, and that endeavor absolutely informs society and
economics and politics and entertainment and religion and culture and
customs. You simply cannot separate the metaphysics from the lived, actual
experience and practices of a people. It applies to them, and that is
exactly what Pirsig was doing, even if his assessment annoys your
right-wing proclivities.



Mark:

OK, we can disagree here.  In my opinion, Lila is teaching how to look at
reality in a different way.  It uses examples of politics and society to
show how this works.  I do not think that Pirsig uses these examples to
bring about revolution in these things.  They are just examples.  Pirsig
cannot claim to be an expert in these things.  All he is, is an expert in
Quality.  His examples are extremely thin, which simply says to me that he
is showing how Quality works when using if for interpretation.  Lila is not
a manifesto, never was meant to be.  However, I will respect your
understanding that it is.  I find Lila to be more personal in nature.



My right wing proclivities?  I am glad that we have a democrat president!
I am not sure what you mean.  This president is the true expression of
Quality.  What is right wing about that?  Let us not get into left and
right.  I have no idea what you are, nor do I care.



Arlo
I mean, its a bit absurd (but no surprise) that just above you use LILA as
a treatise on 'the academy'. You use it to condemn the 'Western academic
approach' but someone think the 'Western political approach' is not part of
the same metaphysical umbrella. It is.



Like I said.  Lila was not meant to be a political dissertation.  It is a
book about Quality and its uses.  However, if you want to march to whatever
you find in there, be my guest.  You may be right.


[Mark]
Best regards and I look forward to a coherent argument.

[Arlo]
I doubt it. But here's hope you prove me wrong.



Mark:

As you can see, I have several questions about the points you make.  All I
ask for is clarity and coherence.  Be rational with what I have asked you
to explain.  Why do you think dmb is providing a good interpretation of
Pirsig's Quality?  You can make a list if you want.


[Mark]
Mark, another wolf.

[Arlo]
Maybe a hyena.

Mark

Well, I suppose that makes you a skunk!

:-).


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