Re: MD Migration towards Dynamic Quality

[Matt the Amazing Technicolor Dream Coat]

So many things to say to so many people.  First, I like the discussion so
far, but....
I think I may have led you astray from the real question/problem I had.

SAM

>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.

MATT

I don't think we (or the MOQ) can say something is better or not flawed
because it's undefined.  Leaving DQ undefined is fine.  But I don't think
that volunteers it for being the top-dog.

SAM

>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. 

MATT

I hope that's not my underlying concern because rejecting value judgements
would put us in the SOM camp and I don't want to do that (nor do I think I
did).

I think the confusion that I bred in Sam's e-mail (and in 3WD's short
reply) was my quoting of Simon and calling it a bombshell.  It was more
rhetoric than anything and if I'm sacrificing my clarity, I apologize.  I
called Simon's quote a "bombshell" because, not for anything in particular
he said, but because the take-home message of the quote was "Maybe DQ
shouldn't be the Zen Master of the MOQ" (for clarity: "Maybe we should
re-think the superiority of the current levels")  Like I said, it was
nothing in particular that Simon said.

(ASIDE:  I completely agree with the carrot analogy.  But we can only say
that after we establish DQ as the carrot.)

NUNZIO

>What I did notice though is that Matt (correct me if I'm wrong) seems
>to be confusing DQ with change. 

MATT

Hrm, it certainly seems that way from my post, doesn't it.

Well, there's an unfortunate reason for that:  writing too many essays for
the academic establishment.  I tend to use change and Dynamic
interchangeably for those uninitiated in the ways of Pirsigian Metaphysics.
 However, in this forum I need to make sure people know what I mean.
Though, I do think change and Dynamic are synonyms (or cousins, if you
will), you are right Nunzio, they are not the same thing.

My use of change in my "blah, blah, blah" paragraphs on Oakeshott got
obscured because of my discontinuity between the "metaphysical problem" and
the "consequences of the metaphysical problem".  All my fault.

Here, finally, is the metaphysical problem:

What/Who says that Dynamic Quality has the moral high ground over static
patterns of value?
Argue and defend.

And here, seperated, is the "consequence" (as I see it):

If we (the Defenders of MOQ) cannot give Dynamic Quality the high ground,
then the MOQ allows for someone (say His Most Evilness, Darth Oakeshott) to
propose an alternative interpretation of the MOQ that places the static
patterns of value over Dynamic Quality.

That is, in a nutshell, the problem.  As I see it.  In so many words.
Forget everything else I said if it gets in the way.  Concentrate on the
problem.  (Picture the intellectual landscape with a metaphysics that
places the static higher than Dynamic.  Picture the evil that could be
reinforced by it.  Does it make you cringe?  Me, too.)

In conclusion, I have to say that I like Andrea's summary of the
relationship between DQ and SQ.  In particular I like,

>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.

That's gold.  But...

I don't think it really addresses the problem (which, again, was probably
my fault).  To say that DQ is a "meta-" form of good is to just change the
wording.  One could come back and say, "Well, why isn't SQ the meta-good?"
There may be a very good argument behind this, but it's the argument I
want, not just the assertion.  

I will also ask, "Is 'meta-' a better term than 'better'?"

Thank you all, I can't wait to resolve this.

Matt


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