LS Re: Criticism of Principia


Martin Striz (striz1@MARSHALL.EDU)
Sat, 20 Dec 1997 13:37:44 +0100


I'll only respond to the critique of my principia since I
can't speak for others:

>> Principles, by M Striz
>
>> What is Quality?
>> It's 'now,' the pre-intellectual cutting
edge of
>> experience. It is also goodness and
truth. The
>> sanskrit word is 'arete.'
>
>If Quality is pre-intellectual, does this doom the
intellectual
>and the post-intellectual to non-Quality? Or is it merely
>dynamic Quality that is pre-intellectual?

Well, first of all post-intellectual and intellectual are
pretty much the same thing, it's the experience after you
have thought about it, gotten used to it, thrown your own
judgements on it, etc. etc.

And yes, DQ is pre-intellectual. Static quality is
post-intellectual, it is a mental construction.

>> What is the Metaphysics of Quality?
>> Metaphysics is a broad philosophical
view of
>> reality, usually entailing ontology,
epistemology,
>> and ethics. The Metaphysics of Quality
is the
>> view that Quality is the primary
empirical reality,
>> that reality is a moral order, that
things are
>> patterns of values derived from the
experience of
>> Quality.
>
>> What else does the MOQ say?
>> In the view of the MOQ, the cutting edge
of
>> experience and source of all things is
Dynamic
>> Quality, the post-experience
construction of these
>> values is static quality.
>
>> What's Dynamic Quality?
>> It is that pre-intellectual nowness that
creates
>> existence, that IS existence. It is
unknown,
>> chaotic, fresh, and new.
>
>> What's static quality?
>> It is all the post-intellectual value
patterns we
>> construct.
>
>Does this mean that all static patterns have an
intellectual component?
>That they need to be perceived to exist?

Exactly. Pirsig battled the object-oriented ontologists
(realists) and subject-oriented ontologists (Idealists) in
ZMM (the horns of the bull). He threw out the realist view
easily because obviously an object had to be perceived by
the subject in order to be known, it had to be transferred
into the subject, so to speak (using SOM terms now). The
problem he had was with the Idealists. He even admits that
the Idealists, using sound epistemological rationality, have
a tightly-shut case (forgot the page, but I can find it). He
threw Idealism out pretty much on rhetorical grounds, saying
it was "too far fetched."

However, with the MOQ, which is a more inclusive
metaphysics, these views are not simply rejected, but are
unified and improved. DQ is that objective side of reality
that the realists agree to. However, there is also the
Idealist component, which is SQ. (Now you might object: so
did he simply replace realism with DQ and idealism with SQ?
No, because in SOM-land those are two indepedent and
contradictory views, in MOQ-land they complement each other,
making evolution possible.) Remember the quote from ZMM
posted by Bo and on Dave's graphical representation of the
MOQ about how people "create analogues" and call them
reality and teach their children they are reality, and that
they ARE reality. This is all about reconstructing reality
in our heads. To the Idealist, when you look around the
room you're not really looking at that room (whether there
is a real room there are not), you are looking at a
representation of that room in your head, an analogue that
may be based on an underlying reality (realist) or not
(idealist). So, IMHO, Pirsig makes room (hehe) for this
view by saying that static quality is kind of the same way.
We consruct static patterns intellectually, they are
post-intellectual.

Consider the following passage from Lila, page 137,
paperback version:

"If the baby ignores this force of Dynamic Quality it can be
speculated that he will become mentally retarded, but if he
is normally attentive to Dynamic Quality he will soon begin
to notice differences and then correlations between the
differences and then repetitive patterns of the
correlations. But it is not until the baby is several months
old that he will begin to really understand enough about the
enormously complex correlation of sensations and boundaries
and desires called an 'object' to be able to reach for one.
This object will not be a primary experience. It will be a
complex pattern of static values derived from primary
experience."

This passage pretty much sums it up. The baby rattle or
Gerber's baby food or even its own mother are static value
constructions. But there are no 'actual objects.' Object
and and subject are human constructions. They are the
differences and repetitive patterns and correlations we
experience.

>> It's often boring and predictable, but
>
>I would say always predictable - that predictability is an
>identifying characteristic of static patterns.
>
>> most importantly it is stable and the
basis of our
>> knowledge(1) of existence. There are
four primary
>> levels of static quality, based on the
rules/morals
>> that govern those values on each of
those levels.
>> These are physical, biological, social,
and
>> intellectual. What is moral for one
level may not
>> be for another, they interact and
conflict or help
>> each other out. With the impulse of
Dynamic
>> Quality, static qualities evolve.
>
>> (1) I make a distinction between
experience and knowledge. Experience is
>> the pre-intellectual awareness of
values, knowledge is the post-intellectual
>> awareness.

Hope I helped,

Martin

--
post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com
unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com
homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:27 CEST