Well Sam's post covered the pictorial I was going to draw for you,
you know the thing about the welding and all that. Though I was going
to use the building of a road. Anyway, as I was reading your post I
also came with the 'obvious' answer, but as you said that is not
truly an answer.
What I did notice though is that Matt (correct me if I'm wrong) seems
to be confusing DQ with change. Change is not exactly DQ and vice
versa. Change does not necessarily mean a good thing. While DQ always
means a good thing. Here is another misunderstanding that I think
that I have picked up. We are not always living in static quality. Lets
take a car for an example. (I can't think of anything better) You go
out to buy a car. You see one car, lets say a Mercedes that you
know is good quality. You see another car, lets say you also see
another car that has a few dents. The Mercedes represents
static quality (for it exists) and the dented car represents just change.
For
you to gain the Merc is DQ for you to get the dented car is
just change. I know this is a bad example but I'm sure you get
the gist of the matter. For the dented car is going to give you no
end of trouble. As most second hand cars do.
One last thing. There must be no confusing Ethics with DQ. As
like change they are different but not always complimentary.
When Pirsig talks of Morals I interpret it as he is speaking more
of the individual then society. Then again I am an individualist.
PS what is the opposite of DQ? Or have I just been roped by
dualism again
> ----------
> From: Matt the Amazing Technicolor Dream
> Coat[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Reply To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2001 8:40 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: MD Migration towards Dynamic Quality
>
> I told myself to be a good little Buddha and leave it alone. "You've said
> your piece, anything else will detract from it." Right, exactly.
> Nit-picking is annoying and just starts a huge brawl.
>
> But...
>
> There happens to be something I said in my last e-mail (and then repeated
> in Platt's MD Summary of the MOQ) that took me a long time to finish when
> I was writing it:
>
> > Why is it migrating towards
> > Dynamic Quality? It must be because DQ is inherently higher up on the
> totem
> > pole. Why is it higher? Its higher for the same reason that Quality
> exists in
> > the first place: the world wouldn't function if it weren't or at least
> it
> > wouldn't look the way it does. (ZAMM Ch. 18)
>
> The part that I struggled on was: Why is it higher?
>
> I knew what I wanted to write. "It's higher 'cuz, well, take a long look
> at history and you'll see it evolving towards ... something...." I was
> kinda' stuck in my own rhetoric. Everything I wrote down I had a "Why?"
> for. It was real annoying, but sometimes it's the annoying parts that are
> the most enlightening. I ended up going with what I did because it was
> catchy, definitive, and straight out of ZAMM. Always good to pull
> together two books in the same cause.
>
> But now the annoying buzz became a definitive racket. "What if Dynamic
> isn't the high ground? What if static is the high ground? Nothing in
> nature says that Dynamic is higher. The world could function if static
> were higher. So why isn't it? Why? Why!?! WHY!?!"
>
> I stared at my computer screen for 15 minutes while the internal debate
> raged. I told myself "Attention can't be properly placed on it today.
> It's not the point of my argument, only a piece. A piece that will
> hopefully be overlooked and taken on Pirsig's word." So I finished the
> e-mail and drowned out the racket with some nice, mind-numbing television.
> But going back today and having nice words said about me by Platt and then
> reading his post (Yes, I read it again. I happen to like my rhetoric.),
> well, it started the racket again. "Please, tell me why Dynamic is
> higher. I know you want to know. So just tell me. Just, think about it
> some more. Please. Please! PLEASE!!!"
>
> And then the bombshell:
>
>
>
> Perhaps, and this does go against Pirsig's direct word, we should
> recognise that DQ never gets any closer, and conclude that therefore no
> levels are superior to other levels (is it BAD that a plague should wipe
> out a society? is it BAD that a society should wipe out a plague?)
>
>
> Simon saw it!!! He was willing to say it. I don't know if he quite
> understands it yet, and it certainly isn't coherent yet, but there it is:
> Why? Why!?! WHY!?!
>
> So there it is. Why is Dynamic higher than static? Why is life a
> migration towards Dynamic and not a migration towards static. This is
> probably the most important question about the MOQ because it's the
> pivotal assertion that allows for every single useful thing the MOQ has to
> offer. Static's moving towards Dynamic. Without it the MOQ is a shell.
>
> If you have trouble getting at the question (I know I did) then think of
> it like this: where does Pirsig get the idea that Dynamic is higher than
> static? If it's from nature, than how? If not, than is making static
> higher just as coherent as making Dynamic higher?
>
> As a preliminary answer, I went back to Pirsig today for a hand and was
> able to piece together that the "towards" in my "It's higher 'cuz, well,
> take a long look at history and you'll see it evolving towards ...
> something...." is really an "away" and the something is static patterns.
> (Lila Ch 11) That's what I was struggling for yesterday. But today, its
> not good enough. What if the first cut of Quality, static-Dynamic, placed
> static at the top? Would the world change?
>
> ....No....
>
> That's the unsettling answer. (And I want to hear lots of comments
> telling me different.) The world wouldn't change because if static were
> at the top, change would still be allowed for in the rare (and bad)
> Dynamic moment. (Incidentally, I brain-washed myself a year ago into
> thinking that change would not be possible if static were the more desired
> one and, therefore since change happens, Dynamic is higher than static.
> It's why the question has never come up before.)
>
> The main reason I'm thinking this way (though it cuts to my very core) is
> because I'm being unduly influenced by an English political theorist that
> I've studied recently (and that I also despise): Michael Oakeshott.
> Oakeshott would agree with a MOQ that placed static higher than Dynamic
> because he was a conservative. As far as I could tell, he was an
> 18th-Century Imperialist writing in the 20th-Century. Oakeshott believed
> that change was bad. Being Dynamic is only rarely useful. Not
> indispensable because he had to allow for good change ('cuz it did
> happen). Oakeshott's theory about change being the Great Satan failed (as
> I would have it in an essay I wrote) because of an argument founded on the
> MOQ: Dynamic having higher status than static.
>
> If Dynamic isn't higher, and it's the other way around, suddenly we have a
> metaphysics that reinforces Oakeshott. That means a metaphysics that says
> that letting the slaves go and giving them voting rights is bad and wrong.
> It means oppression of all kinds is good. Sexual Revolution? Out the
> window. Aparthied? Sounds good to me, can I have another?
> Aristocratically ruled feudalism? I'm afraid so.
>
> As a side note about what you can say and can't say (well, you can say it,
> but you can't say I didn't warn you) in response. You can't say that the
> MOQ is not an ethical system and that it allows any ethical system to have
> "real"-ness. Why? Because the MOQ is an ethical system (if there were
> any additional way to stress the "is" I would do it). Why is it an
> ethical system? I'm glad you asked, 'cuz now it's time for a little Intro
> to Philosophology lesson.
>
> There are three branches of philosophology: epistemology, metaphysics, and
> axiology. Epistemology deals with the How do I know something? questions.
> Metaphysics deals with the What is reality? questions. Axiology is a
> little known word that formalizes the question of What has value? And
> there you are, the three key words to philosophology that clue you in to
> what kind of philosophology you are doing: know, reality, and value. The
> beautiful thing that Pirsig did was make axiology and metaphysics the same
> thing. Value is reality. After that you're just left with epistemology
> which is what was predominately covered in ZAMM. (In fact, in Ch 18 of
> ZAMM, we find Pirsig essentially asking the question How do we know
> reality has value? That was the pinnacle question to establish Quality.
> Now we need to establish the MOQ by answering Why is Dynamic better than
> static?) So, essentially Pirsig reduces axiology into metaphysics, a
> niffty move if I've ever seen one. What that also means is that the (at
> minimum) three branches of axiology (politics, aesthetics, and ethics)
> become the same thing as his metaphysics. Pirsig's metaphysics is his
> ethics.
>
> Oh, and what you can say is that "because all of this good change has
> happened, it is obvious that Dynamic is better than static." This is
> essentially Pirsig's point, but he puts it more eloquently and defends it.
> The problem with this point is that it doesn't rule out an Oakeshott
> interpretation of the Dynamic-static cut. Oakeshott could just come back
> and say, "Well, it's obvious that Static is better than dynamic. Hell, I
> even Germanized it. Heh, heh. I'm an evil man. Go rich people!" The
> problem is with the word "obvious". It's really not a good argument. I
> or somebody else could flesh out why it isn't (think Kuhn and that evil,
> evil relativism) and the consequences. I'd rather not waste my breath at
> this point. I want to hear everyone's thoughts for a different argument,
> first. If all we got is "It's obvious" then we can go from there with the
> consequences.
>
> As an aside, even though I don't think I could, I really hope I'm not
> shooting the MOQ in the head. It's definitely the coolest thing I've ever
> read, defended, and used. To kill it would disenchant me for the rest of
> my life. Kinda' like in ZAMM when Pirsig was so disenchanted with science
> and then drifted laterally for a while. Except, I know I'm not innovative
> and Dynamic (let alone smart) enough to create something to fill it's
> void.
>
> So, I'm begging you. Please tell me I'm wrong. Please. Please!
> PLEASE!!!
>
> As humble as ever,
>
> Matt
>
> p.s. After writing this all down and re-reading it, I think I'm beginning
> to see some holes. I think it has something to do with "value". (You
> decide if my tongue is in my cheek.)
>
> And now, like a good little, pudgy Buddha ("Look at the cute Buddha!
> Isn't he so cute? Yes he is. Yes he is!") I'll shut up.
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
