[MD] Really? Is that all there is?

[david buchanan]

Krimel said to every  MoQer:

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.

dmb says:
Ahh, so you admit that you don't see the difference between SOM and the MOQ and you don't see the MOQ as a replacement for SOM. And, quite oddly, you think that rejecting SOM is converting the MOQ back into SOM. "When you say that the MoQ is meant to replace SOM, you convert the MoQ back into SOM." Hmmm, you'd definitely have to do some explaining for that make any sense. How does that work, exactly? Seems logically impossible to me but if you think you can make a case for that, knock yourself out.  



Krimel said:
The central tenant of the MoQ, that is, prior to any "central distinction" is Quality.

dmb says:
Quality (DQ) is not a tenant. It remains undefined but it is the central term around which all of the MOQ's conceptual furniture is arranged. It remains undefined because it refers to pre-conceputal experience but definitions always involve concepts. It is undivided experience, which is to say experience prior to the distinctions of consciousness. But a metaphysical system is going to be nothing but concepts and definitions, so we are talking about the distinctions, definitions and ideas presented in Pirsig's books, not the primary empirical reality itself, not Dynamic Quality itself. And this point is very much part of the distinction. Static quality is supposed to be definable and we want to be able to distinguish one idea from another. This is not a matter of dogmatism or rigidity but simply a matter of clarity and accuracy about what these books say and don't say. It's not that fancy.

Krimel continued:
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.  ...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.

dmb says:
Distinction itself is a problem? Huh? No it's not. Not if you're trying to stop people from confusing or conflating one idea with another. The boundary between DQ and sq is definitional. It's just a line that separates one concept from another, one meaning from another. Why is it problem to make such distinctions? I think you're confusing philosophical debate with the mystic's prohibition against defining reality. I don't want to define reality. I just want to be clear about what Pirsig is saying or not saying, what the MOQ does and does not mean. That's the scope and scale of my criticism too. I'm simply trying to explain how you are misunderstanding Pirsig. You're evading the argument as well as the textual evidence that supports it, by the way.  I mean, you're not actually engaging in the criticism. Marsha never does. I doubt if she ever understands the criticism. Maybe it's just unwillingness rather than inability, but I doubt it. 



Krimel said:
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.


dmb says:
The distinction is a continuum? Mutual annihilation? I can't make any sense of that. I'm just talking about the difference between static and Dynamic as it is explained by Pirsig (and James). I'm just saying that this part of the MOQ is widely misunderstood and many misunderstanding will follow from that mistake. You can continue to ignore the text and play silly games with straw men or you can read, think and reply like a reasonable person. I can't make you do that work. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. Right? It's up to you, dude.

" 'There must always be a discrepancy between concepts and reality, because the former are static and discontinuous while the latter is dynamic and flowing.' Here James had chosen exactly the same words Phaedrus had used for the basic subdivision of the Metaphysics of Quality."

Why would anyone here NOT want to rightly understand the basic subdivision of the MOQ? Discussing the MOQ is the point and purpose of this forum, after all. How can there be anything good about misunderstanding the basics? Why in world would you NOT want to get that right? And if you don't care what Pirsig is actually saying, then what the heck do you think you're doing here? 








> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------------------------------------
> 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.
> 
> 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