[MD] Experience of both the actual and the possible

[david buchanan]

Arlo said to Krimel:
See, right there you are back in S/O logic. You've just placed 'static quality' (both the subject and the object) as prior to 'experience'. Once you done this, using the labels of static, dynamic and quality won't undo the S/O damage. I get that this shift (Quality preceding both subjects and objects) is a big one, but its at the heart of both ZMM and LILA, and I don't think you're really understanding Pirsig if you don't get this very significant foundational statement.    You can disagree with Pirsig, to be sure. But given that the alternative you seem to propose (static quality existing prior to experience) is simply SOM using Pirsig's terms, there is likely not much for me to discuss.

dmb says:
Exactly. It's very refreshing to see somebody else articulate this very crucial point. Thank you, Arlo.

It's not just Krimel, of course. This is exactly where lots of discussion participants fall down. The problem, like you say, is basically converting the MOQ back into SOM. The problem is trying to understand the central distinction of the MOQ (static and dynamic) in terms of SOM, which is always going to be a misunderstanding. The MOQ is meant to replace SOM, of course. 

It is a big shift. It's nothing short of a "radical reconstruction of philosophy". When James first articulated his stance against SOM, it "shook the world". But what really makes this continued misunderstanding so tragic is that the chief offenders consistently refuse to take the textual evidence seriously. These evasions happen in all kinds of ways, and I suppose that some more sincere than others. I presented two pieces of textual evidence for this anti-SOM move, one from James and one from Pirsig, and both of them simply disappeared and played no role whatsoever in Krimel's reply. I mean, what could possibly be more relevant than a quote on the topic from the text we're supposedly here to discuss? What's better than an additional quote from the philosopher Pirsig is quoting - in the text we're supposedly here to discuss? Sorry, but that is not the kind of thing that an honest debater will do. That's just a refusal to play by the basic rules of the game. It's like knocking the game board over whenever it's not going well. It's cheating, basically.  

Krimel said:


.... Pirsig waxes so eloquent in Lila about the virtue of DQ that he dismisses its dark chaotic side. Pure DQ is almost always bad. ...

dmb says:
Quite the opposite is true, actually. Lila is largely focused on the static side of things. In the second book, Pirsig says he'd that in his first book he had pretty much ignored the philosophologists (academic professionals) and they had pretty much returned the favor. So Lila aims to shed the "cult classic" reputation and articulate an a coherent set of idea, a philosophical vision and he even get philosophological. That's where mainstream American pragmatist like James come into the picture. But even back in ZAMM the mission is to improve rationality. Yes, it is a form of philosophical mysticism too, but that doesn't preclude the articulation of a coherent set of ideas and the problem to be solved is an intellectual problem. 

"To understand what he was trying to do it's necessary to see that PART of the landscape, INSEPARABLE from it, which MUST be understood, is a figure in the middle of it, sorting sand into piles. To see the landscape without seeing this figure is not to see the landscape at all. To reject that part of the Buddha that attends to the analysis of motorcycles is to miss the Buddha entirely.    ... About the Buddha that exists independently of any analytic thought much has been said - some would say TOO much, and would question any attempt to add to it. But about the Buddha that exists WITHIN analytic thought, and GIVES THAT ANALYTIC THOUGHT ITS DIRECTION, virtually nothing has been said, and there are historic reasons for this. But history keeps happening, and it seems no harm and maybe some positive good to add to our historical heritage with some talk in this area of discourse."  

Later in the book he expresses the same sentiment with respect to Taoism. He did nothing for Quality or the Tao. They're just fine without his help, he says. What benefited was reason. And then in Lila he comes right out and declares his intentions to focus on the static side. 

"...In the past Phaedrus' own radical bias caused him to think of Dynamic Quality alone and neglect static patterns of quality. Until now he had always felt that these static patterns were dead. They have no love. They offer no promise of anything. To succumb to them is to succumb to death, since that which does not change cannot live. But now he was beginning to see that this radical bias weakened his own case. Life can't exist on Dynamic Quality alone. It has no staying power. To cling to Dynamic Quality alone apart from any static patterns is to cling to chaos."

"Static quality patterns are dead when they are exclusive, when they demand blind obedience and suppress Dynamic change. But static patterns, nevertheless, provide a necessary stabilizing force to protect Dynamic progress from degeneration. Although Dynamic Quality, the Quality of freedom, creates this world in which we live, these patterns of static quality, the quality of order, preserve our world. Neither static nor Dynamic Quality can survive without the other."



Yes sir. The MOQ's static-dynamic distinction is the key. It's the first move and without that the rest of it won't make any sense. If you fall down at this point, you're talking about something other than MOQ. If you get what Pirisg is saying, then you understand why this is not a trivial matter. It's a fatal mistake.