In a message dated 1/5/00 3:43:53 PM Central Standard Time,
Balestra@ibmail.nl writes:
<< Later Struan clamed to be up the same creek (such coincidence) with no
paddle too! It's slippery stuff. Everytime I get near a sence for the answer
it
escapes me. The importance for me has to do with the question that is very
close: "is it valuable to me if our good would be only human based in stead
of
based in a deeper universal way?' >>
Hello All
I am currently reeling with fever and sickness (caught some kind of bug from
my equally sick fiancee) and I'm too sore and weak to leave the house. All I
have the strength to do is type and move my mouse.
Earlier today I was reviewing some of Struan's old posts. His posts stand out
from the others in his frank criticisms of the MoQ. He never pulled any
punches and wasn't bashful about proclaiming something stupid. In some
instances his sharp and (intentionally?) threatening reasoning powers even
seemed to frighten other posters. I laughed out loud at some of his exchanges
with Bo. At times he came across as downright mean, but you could never
easily discard his logic. When he called something stupid, he usually gave a
good reason for it.
When he wasn't busy explaining why something was stupid (sorry to generalize)
he was very consistent about some important points which did not receive
adequate feedback IMO.
The thing that stands out the most for me is Struan's claim that
Subject-Objects metaphysics gets blown waaayyy out of proportion by
supporters of Pirsig's MoQ. Struan stressed the importance of this apparent
folly repeatedly. He said that no "serious" philosophers make any kind of big
deal over the SO division, and that this was perhaps Pirsig's biggest blunder
of all. Interestingly, no one here seemed to give this particular opinion of
Struan's much consideration, with the exception of Bo, who reacted violently
to it.
I am interested in knowing where each member of the group stands on this
issue. Do any of you agree with Struan's assertion that most of us are
needlessly making a big deal out of SO metaphysics? As much as Pirsig talks
about SO metaphysics, it could possibly have serious ramifications on the way
we view the MoQ. And is Struan indeed correct when he states that most
"serious" philosophers don't pay much attention to the SO division?
Struan also seems to think that Quality and Morality are not the same thing,
as Pirsig says they are.
And finally Struan's position on Quality itself. I personally have always
considered Quality to be a synonym for Good. In fact, I prefer the term Good
rather than Quality. Neither can be defined. No one here, not even Struan,
can refute the cornerstone of Pirsig's religion: Quality cannot be defined.
When asked point blank where good comes from, Struan could not answer. He
didn't know. None of us seem to know. We know what good is, but we can't
define it. Exactly as Pirsig says. There's intuition and reason and
observation and truth, but good seems to transcend all of these in some
profound way we can't grasp, does it not? Protagoras' famous saying "Man is
the measure of all things" is ultimately true. Not the source of all things;
the measure of all things.
And finally there's Struan's assessment that saying Quality is the primary
empirical reality of the world can easily be replaced with "X" is the primary
empirical reality of the world. How many would agree with this? Is the logic
sound? Can we easily replaced Quality with X...?
Jon
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:35 BST