[MD] Really? Is that all there is?

[Krimel]

[Krimel]
Really? 
Did you read what I wrote. 
Maybe you should read it again.
 In the meantime perhaps some others among the orthodox can make sense your
compounding errors.

-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of david buchanan
Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 7:34 PM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Really? Is that all there is?


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
 		 	   		  
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