> Hi Tuukka,
> Off-line since I have been banned for saying too much :-).
> The problem you present seems to arise from the supposed purpose of
> MoQ. Each of us has our own purpose therein. I commend you for
> yours. As you know, strapping metaphysics within the strict rules of
> academia will result in a temporal encapsulation of Quality, and allow
> it to be subjected to standardized appraisal of value. Speaking from
> within Quality (and not objectively) one can see that this static
> depreciation of Quality is a dead end.
No. Dynamic Quality can be defined with formalisms in such a way, that
those, who do not believe there are other than static things, have every
reason to refuse to use the concept of Dynamic Quality. For such people,
these definitions we have made are not something they will embrace. It
is more likely that they will be angered by them. I have already angered
a professional referee by speaking of nonrelativizably used predicates.
He said it's completely obvious that predicates may not be used in such
a way. This is good!
If we can extract statements like these, we can later hold the academia
accountable for condoning a belief in a static reality that, however,
has no justification. The right moment to do this is when academic
philosophical pursuits themselves fail due to this belief, which happens
frequently. The problem of induction is just one example of this.
Bear in mind, I'm not asking YOU to do this. First and foremost, I am
providing the means for SOMEONE to do it. Whoever wants to do that kind
of a thing. Probably someone eventually will. It's quite probable that I
will try to do that myself later.
Read again what the referee said. He didn't say, that there are no
nonrelativizably used predicates. He said they are "banned", as if they
were evil or something like that. But if they are banned, they exist!
And if they exist, they CAN be subjected to academic inquiry. The
anonymous referee, who said this, was probably shooting himself in the
foot here. But it's good to let them do that themselves.
> To address the first of your links:
> Every science is normative (speaking as a scientist). That is,
> science is presented within the rubric of current understanding (or
> policies if you will). Science creates a normative appreciation for
> that which it seeks to describe. One cannot have faith in science
> except to say that it will always change its normative position. As a
> scientist, I have faith in the scientific method, which is more DQ
> than sq. This faith comes from the advances in medicine, shelter, and
> food, brought about by this method. The method, as I have stated
> before, is "adding salt to taste". Adding salt and tasting is the
> scientific method. The method has obviously increased in complexity,
> but not in how it is carried out.
This is not what I meant. I meant that mathematical theorems cannot be
proven with empirical research. That's the only thing I meant by
separating empirical and normative science.
> In a previous post, I brought in the concept of two hemispheres of the
> brain (left brain, right brain). This analogy can serve to illustrate
> the mythos/logos split. Pirsig limits the concept of the mythos by
> placing it as the "primitive brain", in my opinion, but it does serve
> his rhetoric which is why he does so. In our daily lives we function
> through both mythos and logos. Using the brain analogy, we can say
> that mythos is the right brain’s domain and logos are the left brain’s
> domain. We can use the same analogy in the Quality division by saying
> that the right brain is DQ and the left brain is SQ. This analogy
> should not be used if it is confusing to you, and it is not meant to
> be rigorous. Reading up on the supposed functions of these two
> hemispheres may give you more idea what I am speaking of.
I don't like any analogies of DQ unless they make a powerful impression
when they are used. This one did not. I would rather say the left brain
is objective, and the right brain is subjective.
> Hopes this helps with your first question. Feel free to transfer this
> to the forum if you are allowed to partake.
I am currently not very interested of informal metaphoric illustrations
of how the MOQ works. I am interested of what Pirsig said, what did he
mean and should his message be improved. The academy is not even
conceivably interested of the opinions of a random member of the MOQ
community. The academy might conceivably be interested of what Pirsig
wrote, and what is the general opinion of the MOQ community, or an
identifiable subgroup of that community. I'm beginning to get the
impression, that there maybe is no consensus. I hope I can get in touch
with Pirsig himself, and preferably work with him for some time to
figure out whether we want to do something together, and if we do, what
When one is about to confront the academy, and make it accept stances it
has banned with intellectual doctrines, one has to play a social game.
The game I'm now creating is like this:
Our work is so technical, that if the academic says, he doesn't
understand it, he can be accused of incompetence. You see, the academics
are PERVERSE. They WANT things to be difficult to understand, because
understanding them anyhow is how they assert their self-worth.
But if the academic understands the work, and says that nonrelativizably
used predicates should be banned, he affirms their existence DESPITE
banning them. If their existence is affirmed, the ban can only be
temporary. Sooner or later, someone will get interested of what the hell
that was, and why was it banned.
This is a dilemma for the academy. If they encounter a technical text
like that - associated with interpretations on how it relates to the MOQ
- they only have bad options. Options, that are bad not for them as
humans, but bad for the intellectual doctrines they currently adhere to.