From: johnny moral (johnnymoral@hotmail.com)
Date: Fri Apr 04 2003 - 22:10:38 BST
Hi Rick and Matt, all,
Since Rick agreed with Matt's post more or less, I'll respond to you both as
one.
>RICK
>Hey Matt. I'm really glad you decided to chime in on this one. If the
>conversation you're refering to includes the recent 'Burden of Proof'
>thread, then I'd ask you to run through it again because I'm going to argue
>that I think you're actually more in agreement with my position in that
>thread than with Johnny's. See what you think...
I'm glad Matt has chimed in too. I feel quite in agreement with him, and
you have found the parts of your posts that i didn't have any problem with
either. But that's no fun, so I'll try and find something in here to argue
about :-)
>MATT
> I'll simply add these thoughts to the pile:
> >
> > I've argued that DQ is an indeterminate quantity from the perspective of
> > the present.
Well, 'the present', taken to mean the whole of everything, dicates exactly
what the future will be, what DQ will bring about, even what our judgements
will be regarding it. It really is the present that is an indeterminate
quanitity from *our* perspective. Even the past is. That is why the future
is indeterminate, that is why DQ is indeterminate, or rather what DQ will
change is indeterminate. I see DQ as a very simple known force - the
"Determinator", if you will - the power that creates the universe each
moment, projecting static patterns (aka morality, aka expectation) to
determine what the 'new present' will be. It lovingly creates the universe
that we expect to be created, it does exactly what it should do,
unfailingly. (Our individual expectations, which, because they are a
product of a shared reality, are remarkably in sync with each other, are
summed up by DQ, including the expectation that it will all make sense and
be consistent)
>RICK
>I essentially argued the same thing when I wrote to Johnny : "There are no
>easy or automatic answers and human beings are still going to have to argue
>over
>things like which choice is really more Dynamic and whether 'all other
>things' are equal or not. No metaphysics will make us unanimous on such
>issues. The best we can hope of a philosophy is that it can draw our
>attention to the issues which are more worthwhile to argue about."
I agreed with that, pretty much. At least the part about how we can't know
what is more dynamic, which is what Matt was saying. It seems to me though
that you were implying that we could know what was more dynamic, or make
judgements from the perspective of 'all other things being equal.'
I think the best we can hope for is an understanding of how morality works,
that we see that it really makes a difference how we live, because we affect
other people. I think we need to reaffirm that morality is public, not
private, and is quite fragile as well as powerful, not trivial or
inconsequential.
>MATT
> "Dynamic Quality" is simply a compliment we pay to actions
> > after the fact, after history has judged those actions to be creative
>acts
> > of genius.
Or before the fact, but yeah, it's a compliment, from the point of view of
our static patterns. That has essentially been my argument against Rick and
Pirsig, though Rick agrees with you below. I said that Rick and Pirsig just
label trends or things as DQ if they like them or desire them, and they
don't see them as either brought about by static patterns, or judged in
their context. But I don't think they admit this (usually), I think they
explicitly say that it is a different kind of morality out ahead of the
present that shines a light on the "actually better" choice (quote is
steve's impatient assertion of essential MoQ understanding), that if we can
free ourselves of historical judgements, we will see this DQ light and
choose it. (Pirsig makes so much of this light, and how it must be the
meaning of 'enlighten' and 'illuminate' in the sense of knowing the truth,
it is embarrassing. Does he not realize that we've all seen daylight, and
have experienced how it's hard to see much at night? If you want to
contemplate those particular new age static patterns, The Celestine Prophecy
has more intrigue.)
>RICK
>Right. DQ is a perspective on experience. I essentially argued the same
>thing when I wrote to Johnny: "We expect that life will entail Dynamic
>change as well as static repetition. Both are aspects of experience that
>might result in good or evil from the perspective of the other."
I don't see how that relates to what Matt is saying, perhaps you are saying
that "good or evil" is the compliment that SQ pays DQ, or DQ pays SQ? But
we are saying that "DQ" is the compliment that SQ gives to what SQ says to
give a compliment to.
>MATT
> > In a simple gloss, this is the same thing that Johnny is saying above,
>but
> > not necessarily.
I think so. The way it seems to be used around here, DQ is just a
compliment. When we don't like something that we call a static pattern, we
compliment ourselves on our Dynamic quality. The idea is that we are the
judge of good, so anything we want is good, so if morality seems to be
against what we want, there must be a different kind of morality, a
different source of good.
>RICK
>I'm very interested to see if Johnny will also claim agreement with you.
Matt's right about how it used. I see DQ as not being a compliment,
however. I see it as being the Love that changes things and powers the
continuing and continuous existence of the universe.
>MATT
>As I haven't paid careful attention to Johnny's argument
> > (its possible Johnny would gloss his statement the way I would), I can't
> > say what Johnny would agree to but this is how I would explain the
>possible
> > differences between the two positions:
> >
> > My statement means that, while the current static patterns judge whether
> > past actions are Dynamic or not, the process of pushing forward is not
> > amoral, as Johnny's staccato statement of his project says.
Well, in that DQ pushes forward the static patterns that are morality, DQ is
certainly moral. It ALWAYS does what it should, it is the very definiton of
absolutely moral in that regard. But it can't help it. Whatever we say is
expected, that is, whatever the static patterns that have made us and our
expectations expect, DQ will do, amorally. It won't shudder for the
universe that we are living in squalor or not being fair. That is the
compliment that we pay ourselves.
>RICK
>That was my position in the argument with Johnny. Change can be moral, it
>is not 'always amoral' (or 'always immoral'... Johnny seems to go back and
>forth on that point).
Change is always the result of static patterns interacting. If the change
is expected, if static patterns suggest that most people would make the
change, it is moral. But in that it involves breaking a static pattern, it
involves immorality. It is always immoral to break a static pattern, if it
is done from within morality itself, as part of larger patterns, though, the
change is moral.
I use "amoral" both to describe things that we commonly don't ascribe a
moral judgement to, as well as the specific case of DQ, as I explained
above. For instance, though most people don't choose to play bassoon, I
wouldn't call that an immoral choice, though technically by my definition it
would be. I would have to appeal to a larger moral pattern that says that
people are expected to choose a hobby or instrument that they like and are
good at, so in that sense, a bassoonist is making a moral choice.
>MATT
>Any push
> > forward will be a creative act and will be, to the single genius and to
>the
> > growing community of followers, viewed as Dynamic Quality, as morally
> > superior to the static pattern it replaced.
Correct. But all that assumes that we can tell which way is "forward", and
we can only tell that from looking at where we came from. And the whole
idea of us going forward, and of there being geniuses, and followers, and a
community, are all static patterns also.
>RICK
>I essentially argued the same thing when I wrote to Johnny: "You'll notice
>that like Rosa [Parks], the brujo wasn't fighting for social change. Like
>her, he was just being himself. But Dynamic elements of the culture were
>inspired and united by the things they did and rallied around them. And
>*in
>a Dynamic sense* they were good."
I still don't know what you mean by "Dynamic elements of the culture" and
"in a Dynamic sense", and even what you mean by "good". Pirsig thought it
was good what the brujo did, but I don't see it that way.
>MATT
>This reflects Dewey's notion
> > of a "means-ends continuum." Dewey said that as our means evolve, so do
> > our ends. This evolution of our society isn't a neat "first the means
> > change, then the ends" or vice versa, but a fuzzy, messy jumble. This
> > jumble roughly correlates to the static-Dynamic continuum.
I certainly agree with a fuzzy means-ends continuum. And I can see how the
neat classification of means and ends is similar to the neat classification
of DQ and SQ. I wouldn't say there is a DQ-SQ continuum, though, I see them
as different things: SQ is the created universe that we see, DQ is the force
that bothers to put SQ together.
>RICK
>That's a great comparison. I think both Dewey and Pirsig would be very
>happy with it.
It's a fuzzy, messy, jumble of a comparison, but that's OK.
>MATT
> > This is how a neopragmatist would gloss Dynamic Quality.
>
>RICK
>I like the neopragmatist gloss more and more everytime I hear it.
>MATT
>Hopefully Johnny Moral finds it a good gloss.
>
>RICK
>Hopefully he does.
I think I do. Thanks to you both.
_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Apr 04 2003 - 22:11:22 BST