[MD] Really? Is that all there is?

[Krimel]

Hey, MoQers, this is a question for everyone.

These remarks were prompted by the exchange below from a thread or two over.

Arlo has not responded ATM but I found Dave's comments truly astonishing. 
Is this the current MoQ orthodoxy? 
Dave jumps all over the accusation of SOM and pummels it with the MoQ.
Dave's version of the MoQ seems to be a replacement of SOM. 
Cavemen think SOM. 
We enlightened ones speak MoQ.
We have substituted the old dualisms for a new one. 
It is like mathematicians arguing whether 1+1=2 or conversely 1+1=2. In with
the new boss, same as the old boss.

Just by speaking of a "central distinction" you miss the point entirely. 
Right there! 
When you say that the MoQ is meant to replace SOM, you convert the MoQ back
into SOM. 

The central tenant of the MoQ, that is, prior to any "central distinction"
is Quality. 
All distinctions flow from a central unity. 
The problem is not this distinction or that. 
It is distinction itself. 
Binaries are not mutual exclusivities. 
They are spectra, probability distributions, horizons. 
There is no rigid line that marks the boundary between SQ and DQ there is no
chasm there. 
What presents itself to us in the lifeworld is not always either SQ or DQ or
subject or object. 
It is often both and neither. 
Quality is harmony; what Heidegger called dwelling. 
Or as Joe might say: Melody. 

The first cut no matter how well planned remains arbitrary at every
distance. 
It shapes coherence around itself and no one likes to build coherence on
shifting sand. It is easy to see the motive for wishing nothing more from
the MoQ than an excuse to shift from one foundation to another. 
But that rather misses the point entirely. 

When for example Nietzsche's madman says "God is dead and we have killed
him." 
He means the death of absolutes and absolute distinctions. 
All of them. 
As he says:

"After Buddha was dead, his shadow was still displayed in a cave for
centuries-a colossal, horrible shadow. God is dead. But as is the way of
human beings, there may still be caves for millennia in which his shadow is
displayed. And we-we must still defeat even his shadow!"

You seem hell bent on nursing Buddha's shadow.

If you throw Quality out of the MoQ you are just another dualist. 
If you attempt to rename Quality DQ as some terminological trope you not
only nurse the darkness you wish it to spread into the world beyond your
cave.

There is no such thing as SQless DQ or DQless SQ.

You say, "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."

The MoQ's static-dynamic binary is not a "distinction" it is a continuum.
And making rigid distinction, relying on mutual annihilation rarely makes
sense.

You said, "If you fall down at this point, you're talking about something
other than MOQ."

I quite agree.

You say, "If you get what Pirsig is saying, then you understand why this is
not a trivial matter."

I have never said this was the least bit trivial, from the moment Paul
Turner proposed it. I am not at all sure Pirsig is as confused on this as
you are.

"It's a fatal mistake," you said.

It certainly is and I hope not one Pirsig joins you in making.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
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 it's 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.