[MD] Sympathy for the Devil

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 3:23 PM, Ant McWatt <antmcwatt at hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Dan,
>
> I wouldn't want to give you a headache but somehow you've misconstrued what I said!

Hi Anthony,
I am so glad! Thank you for your thoughtful response.

>
> Dan said Feb 4th 2013:
>
> I would agree, Marsha. I nearly choked on my chips when I read
> Anthony's reply. Aren't we here to talk about the MOQ?
>
> Ant comments: yes, we are indeed!
>
>
> Dan continued Feb 4th 2013:
>
> We're all familiar with static perspectives of the everyday world, or so I assume.
>
> Ant comments: ideally, yes we are!
>
>
> Dan continued Feb 4th 2013:
>
> This is the world of subjects observing objects that are apart
> and quite independent of us.
>
> Ant comments: no!
>
> The static perspective of the everyday world - as far as the MOQ is concerned - is with the world of Dynamic Quality and the
> four static value levels as laid out in LILA.  You sound like Mr Skutvik at that other place we don't like to mention!!!

Dan:
So tell me more of this world of Dynamic Quality. What does it mean to
speak from a Dynamic Quality perspective?

Anyway, there seems to be some confusion here. You wrote:

LILA is basically written from the static perspective of the
"everyday, mundane world."

Now, if you had said 'Lila is basically written from the static
perspective of the MOQ I would have no quarrel. But when you say 'the
everyday, mundane world' I take that to mean, well, the everyday,
mundane world. So I guess it's my bad. And who are you talking about
me sounding like? Bodvar Skutvik? That's not nice, Anthony. :)

>
> I suppose you can equate subjects to the static intellectual and social levels of the MOQ and objects to the static inorganic and
> biological levels of the MOQ but (as we have seen here!), I think it can confuse people by doing so.  Pirsig always seemed to
> be in two minds about the matter but I'm his acolyte so I'm going to be "hardline" about the matter...  :-)

Dan:
Well, you're not the only acolyte here, are you?

But please explain how this is confusing? Are you saying there is a
better way of viewing the static levels? I mean, Robert Pirsig laid
out this arrangement in Lila and later solidified his comments about
it in Lila's Child. Has he since had a change of mind? Or is this your
own thoughts on the matter?

It was actually one of those 'ah ha!' moments for me when he explained
this in Lila's Child. It made and still makes a lot of sense to me.
How better to marry the world of subject and object metaphysics with
the MOQ?

>
>
> Dan continued Feb 4th 2013:
>
> Sure, our language is built around that foundation.
>
> Ant comments: is it? Sounds like a bit of a sweeping judgement to me.
>
> For a start, what's the documentary evidence that when people first began to talk that they had notions of subjects
> and objects in their mind?  There's no recordings of this time and nothing written down. I think the latter ideas all came relatively
> much, much later; maybe with the Ancient Greeks.

Dan:
Please re-read my comment, specifically the term 'our language.' I
have no way of knowing what people thought when the first words were
uttered. Perhaps I should have been more precise and said 'our today
everyday English language' but I assumed that is a given as that is
the language this conversation is playing out in.

>
>
> Dan continued Feb 4th 2013:
>
> And if we are all content to speak from that perspective,
> then what are we doing here?
>
> I've been butting my head against this keyboard in my efforts to
> explain this to David Harding. I've offered quotes backing up my
> assertions. And now Anthony is basically saying the same thing as
> David! Oh my!
>
> Ant comments:
>
> My apologies here, Dan.  I haven't kept up with your recent conversations with David Harding so I can't make a judgement, whether or not,
> I agree with him about this subject or not.  I'm just giving you my reading of the MOQ as laid out in LILA.

Dan:
No apology necessary. I certainly didn't mean to imply you were
reading our discussions. And I do appreciate you taking your time
here. Your reading of the MOQ seems to differ a bit from my
interpretation of what is laid out in Lila but I am sure there is much
I can learn.

>
>
>
> Dan continued Feb 4th 2013:
>
> The MOQ can be applied to everyday life.
>
> Ant comments:
>
> Bang on!  That is what I was trying to explain to Marsha.
>
>
>
> Dan continued Feb 4th 2013:
>
> I do it all the time. I use it in relationship building. I use it in my work. It enters my
> writings. It has opened up whole new vistas that I had never before considered.
>
> Ant comments:
>
> That's great to hear Dan.  That's what I try to do with the MOQ too.
>
>
>
> Dan continued Feb 4th 2013:
>
> And believe me, I am no academic.
>
> Ant comments:
>
> And, what's that got to do with anything?

Dan:
Your mention of the Tetralemma and how it is more of an academic exercise.


> I have never rode a motorcycle.

Dan:
Ah! T'is what first drew me to ZMM. I grew up riding dirtbikes and of
course repairing them after many a disaster and numerous spills.
Strange how much the book influenced me without teaching me a thing
about motorcycle maintenance. :)

>
> Moreover, you know my first two degrees were concerned with Sociology and the (so-called) Fine Arts?

Dan:
I think I read that somewhere, yes.

>
> Such a background probably gave me the open mind to assess Pirsig's work without the biases that a undergraduate philosophy
> degree would have instilled in me.  If you read the beginning of the MOQ Textbook (the introduction of this is freely available
> at robertpirsig.org) it was the Fine Arts and sociology which were my starting point into Pirsig's work; not academic philosophy.

Dan:
Of course I have your MOQ Textbook so that is no doubt where I read
this. Thank you!

>
> Most conventional Western philosophy that you'll find in your average philosophology department has little to do with my
> philosophical interests.  For instance, I've never come across such a department in the UK that deals with Northrop and very
> few that deal with American pragmatists such as William James.  Most of the usual philosophers who are make an appearance in
> the average UK undergraduate philosophy course (i.e. Descartes to Kant to Dennett) absolutely leave me cold.  Especially those
> Anglo-American philososphers of the late 20th century.  To a man (and nearly all of them are men) they really needed a good dose
> of LSD or something.  Maybe Keith Richards could take some of these characters out to a party? (My hipster prayer: "Dear Keef, please
> take some of your roadies out in the Rolling Stones coach and kidnap Dennett, the Churchlands and the other SOM squares for a long
> party weekend so Western academic philosophy can be saved from itself...")
>
> Anyway, enough fantasising, if you assume, as Pirsig does, that the "starting point" of empirical reality is value, such philosophers and
> philosophologists have little relevance.  Their starting point is somewhere else and it's a "somewhere else" that I don't want to be or
> waste much time worrying about.

Dan:
Sounds a lot like where I am coming from too.

>
>
>
> Dan continued Feb 4th 2013:
>
> So to say the MOQ is just an academic exercise with no value in the real world seems, well,
> dismissive at best.
>
> Ant comments:
>
> It certainly does, doesn't it?  I couldn't agree more.

Dan:
This is obviously an oversight on my part for equating the MOQ with
the Tetralemma.

>
>
>
> Dan continued Feb 4th 2013:
>
> Anyway, I cannot say I agree with Marsha's definition of self as it
> does seem a bit confusing and contradictory.
>
> Ant comments:
>
> Marsha is perfectly correct in her definition of the self.  She is just taking a Dynamic "World of Buddhas" perspective.  However, this
> perspective is NOT mentioned in LILA but (as I said to Marsha yesterday and she knows too well) is given in Pirsig's later correspondence
>  with me and (as far as I remember) to some extent in LILA's CHILD.
>
> So, what I'm trying to do here (rather badly it seems) is to clarify these two perspectives.   From what I was reading in this thread - and
> elsewhere - David Buchanan takes the conventional static perspective of the MOQ (as laid out in LILA) while Marsha tends to take a Dynamic
> "World of Buddhas" perspective.  As I said above, by not qualifying the latter perspective, it confuses things and results in people
> talking over each other; sometimes even being a little rude and frustrated.  (And, we haven't even got back to the Tetralemma which
> provides yet another intellectual perspective...).

Dan:
>From what I gather, the perspective of the Dynamic 'World of Buddhas'
would be to say nothing at all as there is no intellectual distinction
to be made. Am I wrong in saying that?

>
>
>
> Dan continued Feb 4th 2013:
>
> But I cannot agree with Anthony in his summation either. Is this what you're teaching your
> students? And if so, are you sure you're teaching Quality?
>
> Ant comments:
>
> Well, let's hope so, Dan!  (In my presentation at MSU in December I took the issue of how the MOQ views celebrity).

Dan:
Was it well received? It sounds very interesting.

>
>
>
> Dan continued Feb 4th 2013:
>
> Perhaps I have misread these words. Please correct any
> misinterpretations I have made.
>
> Ant comments:
>
> No worries, Dan.  I hope I have clarified what I think even if it disagrees with your own reading of Pirsig's work.
> Now where did I leave my copy of "Let It Bleed'...
>
> Best wishes, as ever,

Yes you have, thank you! And the same to you,

Dan

http://www.danglover.com