From: Ant McWatt (antmcwatt@hotmail.co.uk)
Date: Sat Nov 12 2005 - 01:52:05 GMT
Sounds good to me, Paul. I especially like the emphasis on the PRAGMATIC
nature underlying MOQ thesis 2 (i.e. a move from absolute truth to what is
understood as the best explanation).
Later,
Anthony.
Paul Turner stated November 11th:
>I have suggested before that it may be useful to recognise two theses
>within
>the overall static pattern of the MOQ. Broadly speaking, insofar as thesis
>(1) is largely an articulation of an epistemology of Quality, thesis (2) is
>a dialectical exposition of a metaphysics. I will try and briefly outline
>the scope of each thesis, as I see them.
>
> --------------------------------------
>
>Thesis (1) only describes the view that a reality of essentially undefined
>Dynamic Quality, and not of independent objects, is what is primary in
>experience and, significantly, is what produces all intellectual patterns
>of
>knowledge. This thesis is mainly contained in ZMM, crystallising with
>Pirsig's realisation that "[Dynamic] Quality is the generator of everything
>we know," but is restated in LILA in the sections prior to the end of
>Chapter 8. In this thesis, the everyday world of distinguishable things is
>understood as the result of ongoing Dynamic Quality within the context of
>different intellectual patterns or analogues.
>
>It should be stated here that in thesis (1) (N.B. this includes all of ZMM)
>the terms 'intellectual patterns' and 'intellectual' do not refer
>unequivocally to the static patterns which are defined by the intellectual
>level of thesis (2) because in thesis (1) there are no levels.
>
>I suggest that it is the largely epistemological thesis (1) which Pirsig
>refers to when he says in LILA'S CHILD that "Philosophic idealism is part
>of
>the MOQ" and provides the context for understanding such statements as:
>
>"Within the MOQ, the *idea* that static patterns of value start with the
>inorganic level is considered to be a good *idea*." [LILA'S CHILD,
>Annotation 97]
>
>"It is important for an understanding of the MOQ to see that although
>"common sense" dictates that inorganic nature came first, actually "common
>sense" which is a set of ideas, has to come first. This "common sense" is
>arrived at through a huge web of socially approved evaluations of various
>alternatives. The key term here is "evaluation," i.e., quality decisions.
>The fundamental reality is not the common sense or the objects and laws
>approved of by common sense but the approval itself and the quality that
>leads to it." [LILA'S CHILD, Notes on Annotation 97]
>
>The key point of thesis (1) is that knowledge does not consist of
>representations of independent properties of an objective world. Rather,
>it
>is suggested that the properties of the world arise within the composition
>of knowledge (and it is here that it agrees with philosophic idealism),
>and,
>crucially, that this knowledge emerges from the ongoing experience of
>Dynamic Quality and the value judgements it produces within the context of
>existing patterns.
>
>So, as with all knowledge according to this thesis, the intellectual
>pattern
>of the MOQ is itself generated by a procession of value judgements, which
>leads us to thesis (2).
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>Thesis (2) is the articulation of the particular intellectual pattern - the
>"plain of understanding" - of the MOQ. I think this second thesis is
>almost
>entirely contained in LILA, starting from Chapter 9. In this chapter we
>see
>a transition from the Dynamic Quality that *produces* intellectual value
>judgments to the explanations that are the *result* of those value
>judgments. These explanations include things like
>
>-- the relationship between Dynamic Quality and static quality
>
>-- the evolution of value patterns
>
>-- the stratified ontology of the four levels
>
>-- the moral codes which have evolved along with the levels
>
>-- with respect to the first thesis, the other static patterns that it
>proposes are required for social and intellectual patterns of knowledge to
>be able to latch in the first place.
>
>These are the pragmatic 'high quality' explanations of how the world might
>operate in accordance with the assumption that values are the ubiquitous
>element of an evolving reality. These are one set of general
>'co-ordinates'
>with which we might understand everything from the movement of electrons to
>enlightenment. None of these explanations are forwarded in thesis (1).
>
> -------------------------------------
>
>Below are some brief suggestions on how the distinction into two theses can
>be put to work in understanding the overall MOQ.
>
>To begin, I think confusion has resulted from statements such as this one:
>
>"The MOQ does not deny the traditional scientific view of reality as
>composed of material substance and independent of us. It says it is an
>extremely high quality idea. We should follow it whenever it is practical
>to do so. But the MOQ, like philosophic idealism, says this scientific
>view
>of reality is still an idea. If it were not an idea, then that
>"independent
>scientific material reality" would not be able to change as new scientific
>discoveries come in." [LILA'S CHILD, Notes on Annotation 4]
>
>I think the confusion occurs with this statement because it contains the
>perspectives of both theses and arguably equivocates on the term 'The MOQ'
>as the name for both of them. I translate this statement as:
>
>"The [second thesis of the] MOQ does not deny the traditional scientific
>view of reality as composed of material substance and independent of us.
>It
>says it is an extremely high quality idea. We should follow it whenever it
>is practical to do so. But the [first thesis of the] MOQ, like philosophic
>idealism, says this scientific view of reality is still an idea. If it
>were
>not an idea, then that "independent scientific material reality" would not
>be able to change as new scientific discoveries come in." [LILA'S CHILD,
>Notes on Annotation 4]
>
>And another example:
>
>"The MOQ says that Quality comes first, which produces ideas, which produce
>what we know as matter. The scientific community that has produced
>Complementarity almost invariably presumes that matter comes first and
>produces ideas. However, as if to further the confusion, the MOQ says that
>the idea that matter comes first is a high quality idea!" [LILA'S CHILD,
>Annotation 67]
>
>Which I translate as:
>
>"The [first thesis of the] MOQ says that Quality comes first, which
>produces
>ideas, which produce what we know as matter. The scientific community that
>has produced Complementarity almost invariably presumes that matter comes
>first and produces ideas. However, as if to further the confusion, the
>[second thesis of the] MOQ says that the idea that matter comes first is a
>high quality idea!" [LILA'S CHILD, Annotation 67]
>
>It helps me to think about which thesis is under question when I am talking
>about the MOQ - most of the time it is thesis (2).
>
>It has also occurred to me that an interesting perspective on 'the
>container
>problem' may be provided by thinking in terms of the two theses. With this
>device, thesis (1) can be said to 'contain' thesis (2) as one of the many
>patterns of intellectual knowledge produced by Dynamic Quality, e.g.
>alongside all the variations of SOM. Thesis (2), however, can be said to
>be
>how the world is *from within the pattern of the MOQ* and as such does not
>'contain itself' or any other competing, general description of reality
>i.e.
>metaphysics. There may be problems with this and I include it as a
>tentative suggestion only.
>
>I also think the distinction between the two theses sheds light on some of
>the problems of terminology encountered in the MOQ. Firstly, as implied
>earlier I think 'intellectual' as it is used in thesis (1) is subdivided
>into social and intellectual quality in thesis (2) and one should be wary
>of
>equivocation here.
>
>Secondly, the term 'pre-intellectual', which is mostly used within the
>context of thesis (1), could be modified to 'pre-static' (i.e. the
>experience of indeterminate value prior to its contextualisation into any
>static patterns) when used within the context of thesis (2) so as not to
>erroneously relate Dynamic Quality solely to the intellectual level.
>
> ---------------------------------------
>
>I suggest that the two theses represent distinct stages in the development
>of the overall pattern of the MOQ and that the first stage is not so much
>left behind as expanded by the second. Moreover, I suggest it is sometimes
>necessary to 'back up' into the first stage to answer questions mistakenly
>or inappropriately levelled at the second e.g., If intellect creates
>subjects and objects, how is it that inorganic and biological objects
>existed before intellect? The answer is that in thesis (1) all divisions
>and assumptions are indeed contingent upon the activity of a discriminating
>intellect. However, thesis (2) already accepts one pragmatic set of
>divisions and assumptions and, on the basis of these, offers an explanation
>of how they relate in a historical context.
>
>If this confuses things for you, or if you think it superfluous, please
>ignore it. If it helps, I'm glad.
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Messenger 7.5 is now out. Download it for FREE here.
http://messenger.msn.co.uk
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 -
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 : Sat Nov 12 2005 - 06:20:55 GMT