Hi MD,
many recent posts have tackled the issue of the relationship between DQ
and SQ, asking questions as to which is better. Also related, it has
been questioned (by Simon) that MOQ can provide any specific ethic
answer. This in turn relates to the argument pro free markets, based on
the fact that they are "more dynamic" than other social structures.
Finally, Nunzio has emphasized that DQ is not the same as change (i.e.,
dynamic doesn't imply good).
I wish to state my view on this, but I will only refer to *intellectual*
patterns of quality, which I will, too, equate to "intellectual beliefs"
(about value). An example might be, assigning low quality to living
nearby a nuclear powerplant (the Simpsons).
Within this context, SQ has to do with the set of intellectual patterns
each of us has developed through his/her life. These provide a "table of
values" that can be used to make value judgements about everything we
have patterns for. We each have a (more or less) different such table,
of course.
Each pattern in our table originated from DQ which was later latched
onto that pattern. Our system of SQ patterns, nevertheless, being
static, cannot be adapted to actually *all* the situations, events, etc.
that we might want to express judgements about. There are always issues
that leave us without answers, as well as situations when we understand
that two or more of our patterns are actually in conflict with each
other.
When we experiment a crisis in our table of values (i.e., its not
working) we either feel bad about it or react. This reaction happens as
we open ourselves to the (undefinable) DQ and rework our system of
static patterns.
To sum up, you have your current opinions as to what is good and what is
bad (statically), and that's the first way value (and quality) affects
our intellectual life. Next, you have a source (which cannot be
ultimately, fully comprehended) that favors a process of
discarding/recreating/modifying/amending your opinions, i.e., your table
of values.
In this view, it is a bit incorrect to say that DQ is "better" than SQ.
DQ is actually a "meta-" form of good by which our opinions on value are
modified. DQ is there to change what is good to you.
When talking about political systems of beliefs, we are talking about
static patterns. Reds and blacks both have their system of static
patterns and it seems that none can be convinced that there's anything
wrong about them. Because as long as you make judgements *using* your
table of values, your table of values cannot be contradicted. Note that
since we are talking of intellectual beliefs, even using "facts" to
prove that your opponent is wrong may fail, because intellectual beliefs
are also used to filter and adapt input factual data.
Thus if the MOQ provides an ethics, this does not come, in my opinion,
from the DQ/SQ dualism. The corresponding ethic teaching might at best
be something like "be tolerant" (since your opinions are static, and
wrong, too). Anyway, an ethics may stem from the system of levels...
although I have perplexities on that too (which I may expose in another
post).
Andrea
Elizaphanian wrote:
> Hello people, I've been lurking for a couple of weeks and (mostly for
> reasons of work pressure) haven't contributed anything before. But I'm
> about to go away for a week's holiday, I have to catch a taxi to the
> airport in three and a half hours (which will be 03:00 hours in the
> morning, UK time - bummer) and suddenly - I have a bit of time to
> write something. This is mainly a response to Matt the Amazing
> Technicolor Dream Coat's last post. Is Dynamic Quality inherently
> better than static quality? Or is the Oakeshott option valid/coherent
> etc? Well the first thing that occurs to me is that something
> analogous is discussed when Phaedrus is setting up his innovative
> teaching methods in ZAMM, and forces everyone to agree that they know
> what Quality is, even if they can't define it. And that holding back
> from defining is carried through into the MoQ, where the indefinable
> element *is* the dynamic. So, first point - can we get a full
> definition of static quality? I think, probably, yes, which means that
> - at least in MoQ terms - the Oakeshott option is flawed. But let's go
> further. 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?)
>
> To say that 'no levels are superior to other levels' is to remove
> value judgements from the system, which collapses the MoQ completely.
> It seems to me that if you accept some sort of value judgement, then
> the MoQ is the most creative way of understanding how things fit
> together. But it doesn't rule out an objection which rejects the
> possibility of value judgements at all, and that seems to be what is
> underlying Matt's concerns. (From this point we get to talking about
> whether and how it is 'obvious' or not.) But you won't be able to get
> an intellectual justification or explanation for this - in MoQ terms
> that would be an intellectual pattern trying to explain a dynamic
> pattern (ie define the indefinable). Much more could be said on this
> point, but most of it is covered by RMP himself, I think. However, I
> think there is something misleading here from Simon's original post
> (and possibly before) which is the language about DQ getting 'closer'.
> I would argue that DQ is always just out of our reach, luring us
> forward - a bit like the carrot held in front of the donkey's nose
> getting it to walk forward. At the moment that innovations are taking
> place then DQ is being expressed; hopefully it gets 'latched' on to a
> static level and the 'progress' is preserved. But I'm not sure that
> the long progression of such events means that we are getting 'closer'
> to DQ - DQ is there all the time, and the higher quality levels that
> emerge over time do so on the backs of all the earlier DQ events. DQ
> is not to be identified with any particular evolutionary utopia to
> which the world is being directed - at least, not the way I understand
> it. The mental image that I tend to have comes from welding (I can't
> remember if this derives from ZAMM or not, it probably does, most of
> my good images do). When two pieces of metal are being welded together
> there is one white hot space where the situation is extremely fluid,
> but as soon as the torch passes on then the situation cools down
> (static latching) and things are fixed. I would say that life is
> following the white hot place, but most of us are still stuck in the
> static. DQ isn't a fixed place - of course! I understand it more as a
> process. Which throws up loads of questions about time and space, but
> that will take us in quite a different direction. Lastly, I think it
> would be polite to give a brief autobiographical note: I'm 30, a
> priest based in London with postgrad qualifications in Philosophy;
> read ZAMM when I was 18 and it has shaped the way I think about the
> world ever since. Not completely determinatively, though - I was an
> atheist then :) I look forward to following the discussion further
> (even if I hardly ever get a chance to submit something considered)
> when I get back from my holiday in a week's time. Cheers!Sam
--
Andrea Sosio
RIM/PSPM/PPITMN
Tel. (8)9006
mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
