Re: MD Migration towards Dynamic Quality

[Wim Nusselder]

Dear Matt,   I detect no explicit signs of a chilled heart or a bruised ego. Should I take that as good news? Or should I understand the idea that "a few misunderstandings ... and a few differing points of interpretation ... might be impassable" (9/6 18:11 -0700 is that right?) as an implicit sign of such...? I'm hopelessly optimistic about the possibilities of bridging differences between flesh-and-blood-people so I consider such an idea as rather rash.   As you wrote "you are probably right in your in-game rejoinder to what I said about no-man Oakeshott" I understand that you deem our fight against no-man-Oakeshott won. I agree the purpose of the fight was not Truth, Truth being the goal of static intellectual patterns and defence of a MoQ necessarily going beyond that. I don't think our goal should be (uncapitalized) "truth" either, but (to reach a better understanding of) DQ itself, intersubjective "truth" only being an approximation, an intermediate goal on the road to DQ.   Yes, "anything that has been written on the MoQ [is part of] ... an intellectual static pattern". That doesn't mean a MoQ itself necessarily is. Oxymorons and paradoxes generally are ways of intellect to reach beyond itself, to cope with a reality that is perceived only at the very limits of our range of vision, a reality that includes the indefinable. "Fingers pointing to the moon", they were described before on this list, if I understood correctly from my cursory browsings of archives. They are comparable to the role of rituals in cave-man's primitive religion: ways of society to reach beyond itself, founding intellect.   I also experience the D-s split as better than the S-O split. Lila doesn't really make the case (in the sense of "proves"), but points to this "moon".   We also agree on the unfalsifiability (and therefore unacceptability from a limited intellectual point of view) of metaphysics.   Any misunderstandings and different interpretations left until now?     I'd love to discuss the subject of God & MoQ with you (and anybody else). If you are afraid to hurt and/or antagonize anyone on this list I wouldn't mind going on off-list. As no-one seems to be inclined to join in on our e-correspondence via [EMAIL PROTECTED] until now, it wouldn't make much of a difference. (I hope this induces others to join in.) As I have not yet experienced any antagonism and defensiveness in response to my writings (and because of my above-mentioned hopeless optimism) I'd suggest going on on-list for a while until your finding (that "discussing God in relation to the MoQ isn't a very fruitful pursuit in this forum") is proven true for me too. Antagonism and defensiveness might incidentally also result from the way in which one discusses the subject and not only from the subject itself. "Discussion" might not be entirely the right way of dealing with a subject that touches so closely on intimate Dynamic experience. Among Quakers we often prefer to speak about "sharing experience" of "active listening to each other" rather than about "discussing". It might be instructive to try and prevent antagonism and defensiveness from turning up their ugly heads this time. Anyhow, I doubt whether you are able to antagonise me or force me onto the defensive with this subject. As a Quaker I am thoroughly trained not to be. Could you tell me more about what you have "studied and thought ... about the subject" until now and about your "opinions and arguments about it" (and/or refer back to your unfruitful attempts to discuss the subject on this list)?   DID you have "a misunderstanding ... with drose"?? I think he correctly understood you deemed Catholicism exclusive. Without even momentarily considering your valuation of either Catholicism or exclusiveness, he experienced that as negative quality, because he identifies with Catholicism and he judges exclusiveness wrong. Your judgements were irrelevant to him, only your association of "Catholicism" and "exclusive" was. It conflicts (logically) with Catholicism's self-understanding as "catholic" = "all-inclusive" and therefore with catholics' sense of integrity and self-respect.   If you are interested to know more about Quakers, just ask or have a look at www.quakers.org.   With friendly greetings,   Wim Nusselder   -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: Matt the Amazing Technicolor Dream Coat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Datum: zondag 10 juni 2001 4:17 Onderwerp: Re: MD Migration towards Dynamic Quality Wim: I'll try and be brief, as I think there are a few misunderstandings between us and a few differing points of interpretation.  I think they might be impassable. Let's see. The device in fighting against no-man Oakeshott was not to establish Truth.  A game which, rightly, cannot be won.  The goal, because we cannot convince Oakeshott himself, was to  create a sort of catechism (as Pirsig calls it) of argumentation to throw at any flesh and blood person that arises with Oakeshott's temprament.  It was to establish truth for us, and to back it with a good reason (in case anyone asked). To understand anything that has been written on the MoQ as anything but an intellectual static pattern is to not understand what an intellectual static pattern is.  It's why Pirsig calls the Metaphysics of Quality an oxymoron.  A contradiction in terms.  But, as Pirsig also says, the MoQ already exists.  Any definition beyond that it exists is just our way of coping with reality.  The Dynamic-static split is just a better way of coping than a subject-object split.  That's what Lila is all about (and I realize I'm starting to sound like a broken record in telling everyone "definitively" what Lila and/or ZAMM are supposedly all about, but bear with me).  It's about making the case that D-s is better than S-O.  And both are arbitrary ways in coping with the world. And as for unfalsifiability, that's what metaphysics are.  They are unfalsifiable.  It is why the scientific world and the Analytic philosophers deem metaphysics as a waste of time.  Because science is what demands the possibility of falsification.  Nothing in reality demands that. (Since I'm going in a linear fashion down your e-mail, I thought I'd put here as a side note that you are probably right in your in-game rejoinder to what I said about no-man Oakeshott.) And now for the biggest misunderstanding of all: my comment about God.  I said: (As for the God appendix to your meta-level discussion, I suggest staying out of it completely.  It will get you know where here.) The reason I said that is because I've found discussing God in relation to the MoQ isn't a very fruitful pursuit in this forum (this e-mail list).  I don't want to sound condemning of anyone (some would probably condemn me), but it isn't fruitful here.  I have no problem with God in metaphysics.  I've studied and thought a lot about the subject.  I have some opinions and arguments about it, too.  But the metaphorical air isn't quite right here.  If I had to put my finger on it, it would be too much antagonism and defensiveness.  There are reasons for that, though.  Namely the antagonism and defensiveness.  Another wonderful circle that's hard to break and has nothing to with what's being discussed. (As another side note, I was interested in your description of Quakers.  It was not what I thought it was.  Mind you, I didn't really have a formal opinion in the first place, but the main reason I bring it up is because it illustrates a misunderstanding I had with drose.  I said: "[E]xclusive religions (like Catholicism) might frown upon a Catholic being a pantheist." Drose responded "As to the exclusivity of the Catholic faith, all I can say is you'd be really surprised if you looked a little more closely - I know I was."  I wasn't implying anything about particular Catholics, as if they frowned at other people who weren't Catholic.  Two of my close friends are wonderful, hardcore Catholics.  What I was saying about the Catholic faith is that it is exclusive in the fact that not all people go to heaven.  Buddhists for instance.  I was using it in a technical "religious studies textbook" sense.  On the other hand, Quakers, as far as I can tell from your description, are inclusive.  "The only dogma we have is that we don't have any dogma...."  That's a fairly good description of textbook inclusiveness.  The other thing I should say is that I wan't passing any judgement as to which is better: exclusivenss or non-exclusiveness.) Tired again and needing some karaoke, Matt