[MD] Intellectual Discussion and Dialectic - Finding agreement, Quality and beauty in the world.

[Jan Anders Andersson]

Hi David and Arlo

I think Marsha's and DMB's discussion is mostly based on the Classic/Romantic dichotomy or it can be based on fear, fear to understand another perspective. It can be a psychotherapeutical or a pedagogical issue, who knows?

25 apr 2013 kl. 16:34 skrev David Harding <davidjharding at gmail.com>:

> Hi Arlo,
> 
> “And what is good, Phaedrus,
> And what is not good—
> Need we ask anyone to tell us these things?”
> 
> Do you know what's good Arlo - before you intellectually analyse and run it against a bunch of logical rules such as 'consistency' and 'validity'?  It is very important what people value.  What they value forms their opinions and creates how 'consistent' or 'valid' their arguments are.  Values don't follow consistency, they create it. 
> 
> On 25/04/2013, at 11:55 PM, ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR <ajb102 at psu.edu> wrote:
> 
>> [David]
>> When two people discuss a concept intellectually - naturally there will be disagreement.  What do we do then?
>> 
>> [Arlo]
>> It depends on the context; not just of the disagreement but of the larger activity system of which the disagreement is part. And it depends in large part on the nature of the disagreement. Consider two people disagreeing over "Pirsig is a good author" and two people disagreeing over "Pirsig wrote LILA", then consider these disagreements occurring in a pub or in a classroom. 
>> 
>> Instead, ask these questions. Are all intellectual positions ipso facto equally valid (are all disagreements simply a clash of preferences), and under what contexts should lower quality arguments be constrained by higher quality arguments?
> 
> Arlo, your preferences are your values.  Some values are naturally better than others.  As we all know what's good - until these values are discussed - we cannot know which values are better or worse.
> 
>> 
>> [David]
>> Why does Marsha value the idea that static things change?  Why does dmb value the opposite?
>> 
>> [Arlo]
>> Were this a therapy session where I cared about whether or not DMB and Marsha "got along", these questions might be important. I could not care less about "why" Marsha values "constantly changing static patterns", the argument is whether or not such a view is representative or consistent with Pirsig's ideas (the MOQ). I can "value" the ideas that the intellectual level consists of pancakes and bacon, or that "static patterns" are little green men from another dimension, but so what?
> 
> So that's the whole point of everything.  Your values are the whole enchilada. 
> 
>> The larger question here is the purpose of the forum. If its really just for anybody to say that whatever it is they "value" is "the MOQ", and nobody can be "wrong" about anything they say about "the MOQ", and "the MOQ" is whatever *I* want it to be, and that's fine, then I think we really need to stop pretending this is a philosophy forum and just be honest that its more like an AA meeting. 
>> 
>> "Hi, I'm Marsha and I think static patterns constantly change."
>> "Hi Marsha."
>> "Hi, I'm Arlo and I think the intellectual level is made up of butterflies and candy apples."
>> "Hi Arlo."
>> 
>> Is that what we want? Because, more and more, that's what it seems like.
> 
> You could say...
> 
> "Hi Marsha and Arlo, *Why* do you value the idea that patterns constantly change and the the intellectual level is made up of butterflies and candy apples?  Please show me why those ideas are good? I'm open to those ideas being better than what I think.. "
> 
> If, after honest attempts at seeing the beauty of the ideas presented, the ideas still aren't good.  Feel free to try and explain why an alternative is better.  
> 
> We get so lost these days in dialectical and logical discussion that we forget that the goal is Quality and to become better people.  Folks aren't going to change their mind if you just show them how wrong they are.  They're only going to change their mind if you can show them something better. 
> 
>> [David]
>> But this is true not just of their discussion but of all discussions  - everywhere.  Why do people value the things that they do? Why do some people call one thing moral, while another group call something else moral? 
>> 
>> [Arlo]
>> There will always be clashes among activity systems (or cultures of use), because they have different histories and different structures/artifacts and different goals.
>> 
>> But again, the real questions are about the nature of the disagreement, the context it occurs, and whether or not we want some way for higher quality 'values' to dominate lower quality 'values'. The MOQ gives us a structure for which higher level patterns should have preference over lower level ones. But what about intra-level disagreements? As above, are all 'intellectual' patterns equally 'moral'? The Academy uses "peer review" as one structural technique for prioritizing higher quality intellectual patterns (its not perfect, but I've not seen anything better proposed).
>> 
>> And that, I think, are the main questions here. (1) Are we advancing the idea that all views being offered here are equally valid? and (2) If not, should anything be done so that lower quality positions are constrained in any way?
> 
> Everything is quality - including ideas.  Some ideas are better than others.  Why some ideas are better than others is open to continual discussion and revision as we become more intelligent as a result of our openness to see, not only the values of others, but the values we hold ourselves.  There is no need to constrain.  Quality speaks for itself.
> 
I rised the question about a while ago if there should be some kind of quality measure system applied to the members of MD, like that we can se at Ebay, customers put stars on the sellers. I think it forces the people to behave "better". Some forums have "thumbs up" and "downs" and you can see how many thumbs a person have got.

Quality talks for itself, what we know is what it is worth at the moment, by experience. The best way to separate bad ideas from good ideas is to make money out of it. Money, profit, yield is good measurements on anything that has to do with the exchange og human values, right? There is no question why a Harley is more expensive than a Yamaha. But the overall yield depends on the quality of the management. Remember that I just wrote a whole book about it. Money has value, currency and a number, money, however, is nothing without human values. 

I just happened to stop by a small shabby restaurant along the road. Grass is bad cut, Trucks parked between the trees on the lawn. The furniture inside looks as it is from the 70's, cigarette holes on the floor, but I know this place because the food is perfect. I can stand ugliness if it feeds me. Quality is vague, but it is there, as a balance point, a scale that makes it worth to stop and pay for.

Just like an atom can have different characteristics, charge and mass, but still there is nothing, absolutely nothing in the center of gravity of a particle. Ecxerpt Quality?

Jan-Anders

> -David.
> 
> 
> 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