Re: MD Migration towards Dynamic Quality

[Wim Nusselder]

Dear Matt,   You wrote 2/6 11:31:03 -0700 "maybe that's a little premature, but I think the issue is resolved for me."   I hope so, for I have hardly had time to read and digest this thread up till now, concoct a contribution and subscribe to the list to be able to send it. (Until now I was only reading from the archives for about 2 weeks.)   You wrote 1/6 11:31:28 -0700 "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, separated, 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."   Somehow I liked your earlier formulation (31/5 11:21:29 -0700) better: "Why is Dynamic higher than static? Why is life a migration towards Dynamic and not a migration towards static."   So: "Why is DQ 'better' than sq?"   This question appeals to me, because I have been wondering for years about the differences between statements of reality (to be or not to be, true/false), statements of value (good/bad, beautiful/ugly, just/unjust) and ... statements of Meaning (as in "the Meaning of life is..."; not as in "the meaning of words"). (I use "Meaning" when I don't just mean the "meaning" of words.) With the help of Pirsig I came to realise that statements of reality and statements of value are (almost) the same and jointly answer "how"-questions. In order to answer "why"-questions you need statements of Meaning. Are statements of Meaning just a subclass of statements of value? I think not and I am currently trying to work out why. (See www.antenna.nl/wim.nusselder/moq if you want to follow my progress. Comments are welcome.) They may be the same as the Andrea's "'meta-'form" (1/6 00:01:02 -0700), i.e. a meta-form of value statements, but I am not clear about that yet. Anyhow, it seems to me that statements of Meaning do suppose a Subject whereas statements of value don't. (Statements of value don't presuppose a subject if you mean the kind of value that operates on all four static levels, unless you accept inorganic and biological static patterns of value in the role of "subject".).   As long as we don't agree on a Supreme Subject whose experience of Meaning is accepted by everyone (i.e. us ánd mr. Oakeshott) as normative, we can only come farther than "because I say so" by intersubjective agreement (getting ever more people to accept MOQ as static intellectual pattern by making them experience its higher quality, i.e. the greater amount of freedom it allows evolutionary lower static patterns).   (By the way: some contributions to MD seem to cast Pirsig Himself for the rol of Supreme Subject. I am afraid I don't agree with that.)   To make your question answerable but dependent on static patterns, you have to bring it into the intellectual realm by rephrasing it: "How do we justify the statement that DQ is 'better' than sq?" In Pirsig's words (Letter to Bodvar Skutvik, 15/9/00): "by the harmony it produces". As he continues: "this answer is only for people who already understand the MOQ", i.e. "for those who have integrated MOQ as static intellectual pattern in their identity". For empiricists it might have to be rephrased using "conformity with experience" or something like that. For mr. Oakeshott it might have to rephrased in other ways depending on his static intellectual patterns. I don't know enough about them, but I don't think it is inpossible.   Could you tell me more about his epistemology?   By way of introducing my 'self' (as I am new to this list): Biologically, I'm 40 years old and live in Haarlem, the Netherlands. Socially I was trained as economist of developing countries (graduating 15 years ago) and have been working since as part-time financial adminstrator. Nine years for the Dutch National Association of Third World Shops, for about 2½ years now jobhopping. The other part of my time is devoted mainly to my family of wife and two children (9 and 7). Intellectually my interests can be found on www.antenna.nl/wim.nusselder for who reads Dutch. Otherwise they will hopefully become clear from my future contributions to this list.   With friendly greetings,   Wim Nusselder