ROGER RESPONDS TO BOTH STRUAN
AND THEO ON WEAKNESSES
IN THE MOQ
STRUAN/THEO
I have watched with interest the debate that has emerged from some of my
old postings. In particular, Roger quotes my, 'alter ego,' one Theo Schramm,
who was invented by
myself to remove the cultural blinkers from certain people who read,
'Struan,' and immediately let
rip regardless of how stupid their refutations were.
ROGER:
Dan and (I think) Bo had mentioned to me that you too were the same person,
but to be honest, I was never sure until now. When you (Struan) originally
entered the squad you really raised a ruckus. Some of the responses to your
arguments were absolutely hillarious. When you re-emerged in late 1998 it
was just as odd. I still suspect a few people left this forum to escape your
arguments. I can see why you did it.
However, in re-reading all the Theo posts that I have saved (I only save good
ones), it appears that you either found a lot of value in the MOQ, or you
tried real hard to. Which, may I ask, was it? Please tell me some of Theo
still exists!
STRUAN/ THEO:
It was astonishing how many people agreed with
me when they didn't realise it was me and I have to say that I almost
convinced myself ...
ROGER:
They were basically agreeing with Diana's attempted summation and your
addition of Hugo's 'tacit assumption'. You also added Horse's 'A not A '
fuzzy logic argument and a few choice jems of your own........
THEO/STRUAN:
I say, 'almost convinced myself,' but the formulation was constructed only
to make sure that I
understood where others were coming from. Having confirmed that I did
(understand), I then knew that
it was a 'strawman.' The idea of 'irreconcilable tension,' stood out (along
with the 'perception'
bit and the 'vying for dominance') as the main point of nonsense in that
statement. Nobody sees an
'irreconcilable tension' here - well apart from those who are totally off
their rockers like Bo who
thinks, for example, that every scientist who studies the problem believes
that every behavioural
pattern is due to nature or, alternatively, that every behavioural pattern
is due to nurture with no
in between. This is so far removed from the reality of the situation that
one can only laugh.
Scientists, and sensible philosophers, are much more pragmatic than that,
(Whitehead for example
Roger), and would never fit into such a simplistic and crass definition. I
do like the ironic
situation that someone who sees SOM as a literary device with no basis in
reality, synthesises a
definition accepted by many who think it is not just accurate but a fair
description of the
overwhelming majority of Western philosophy and science since Greek times.
ROGER:
So what was your reason for participating in the 45 day topic discussion?
You stayed in character with great posts that contributed to the flow on this
topic AND on the marathon 2 month topic that followed. Heck, you even
accused Jonathan of being too subjective. In fact I think you wrote
something remotely similar to the following to him:
"And you are, by your own admission, proposing a variant of SOM. You are
relying upon an observer and an observed for Quality (meaning as you see it)
to exist. But SOM isn't MOQ. Quality IS prior to subjects and objects --
that's why its a metaphysics in its own right and not a branch of SOM."
Did you believe what you wrote as Theo? Which of you is real, Struan or
Theo? Or a bit of both? They are both more than welcome here as far as I
am concerned (I too have been known to argue with two contradictory voices),
but it might help if you let us know which one we are talkin' to. ( To be
honest, we need a Struan more than a Theo though.)
Now, on to a few of your arguments. You criticised the MOQ's free will
explanation, its value as an ethical tool, its originality, its
characterization of SOM and its name.
1) FREE WILL: I agree with the critique. Pirsig butchered this one.
However, I do believe the MOQ solves the issue, as do many Eastern and
perhaps several Western philosophies. Pirsig just messed this one up though.
I have explained my take on the issue previously and can do it again if
anyone is interested.
2) ETHICS: I believe the MOQ is a very valuable approach that can be used to
evaluate moral issues. As the recent debate on morals showed, the MOQ is not
good at canned answers. The disagreements between members on some supposedly
simple moral issues were laughable. David B. and Ken I can argue and
rationalize all day long on WWII and never agree about Hiroshima. Pirsig
should be criticized for his overly simplistic 4 level prescription to
ethical dilemmas. However, in the later chapters he does clean things up by
rejecting intellectual rationalizations too. He explains that the good is
determined by pragmatic everyday experience -- by DQ.
In the end of Chapter 29 and the entire last part of the book, Pirsig offers
an approach beyond the rationalizations of the simple levels. The answer
isn't more complexity, it is to continuously reevaluate new approaches to
problems using the framework of the hierarchy of quality. It is to face each
moment with a fresh, uncluttered mind. DQ supercedes sq, even intellectual
sq. ...."this good is not a social code or some intellectualized Hegelian
absolute. It is direct everyday experience." Platt and several other
members came out of the discussion with a similar opinion to this one. Those
that still think the 4 levels are like some kind of 4 Commandments can defend
them on their own though, because I think they are both confused and blind to
the central message of the entire metaphysics. Pirsig shares some of the
blame though by not being more forceful in his explanation on the limits of
his own metaphysics. In his defense though, I can find a dozen or so
specific warnings in Lila of the inherent limitations of rationalizing,
metaphysics, intellectualising, and even of using the MOQ.
3) ORIGINALITY: This is my one word phrase for your various arguments that
most issues in the MOQ have already been solved elsewhere. Again, you are
correct. I have found very few original ideas in Lila. In fact that is what
appealed to me so much. The MOQ took the world as I understood it from years
of reading science and philosophy and religion and sociology and it wove the
elements together in a comprehensive way that was illuminating to the
entirity. I have since found other philosophers that have made similar
attempts with similar solutions, but I found none as brilliant and clarifying
as the MOQ. Its value to me is indeed pragmatic.
4) SOM STRAWMAN: For once, I am in complete disagreement with you here. As
I said earlier, I read as much as the next guy. I also know my share of
bright people and how they think. I see people and I read western
philosophers and scientists and journalists that are hopelessly mired in
objective views of reality. They cannot see the world as one of relations.
Even the quantum and relativity physicists that I read can't see the entirity
of the forest for the trees. I could back this up with a virtually unlimited
supply of examples, but what would be the point?
I think that you are correct though that the SOM views are long since
refuted. The problem is that the century that refuted them also was the
century that refused to acknowledge metaphysics as a valued field at all.
With the rejection of Newton and Descartes, they refused to replace with
Liebniz or Whitehead or James. They threw out metaphysics rather than just
the metaphysicians. In the process, the logical positivists tossed out their
beliefs in the value of philosophy, but not their tacit philosophical
assumptions. Conventional wisdom is hence a mess of jumbled patterns of
thought that don't mesh together as a comprehensive whole. The MOQ is long
overdue.
5) QUALITY VS FACTOR X: I earlier agreed with Jon that we could replace the
term quality with 'X.'
"Of course you can, if it is a better definition..... if it is more true to
experience .... if it is simpler and more concise .... if it is less
confusing and inconclusive ... if it is more elegant and connected to other
beliefs and experiences....IN OTHER WORDS, "X" IS BETTER
THAN "QUALITY" ONLY IF IT IS OF BETTER QUALITY.
I think I will stick with 'Quality.' "
STRUAN/THEO RESPONDED:
Pure sophism.
ROGER:
Pure is the best kind I take it?
STRUAN/THEO:
.....At first sight I might give in and concede that quality is a better
name because it has
more quality..... but, being slightly more canny than that, I realise
that this is purely a linguistic trick as I hope this analogy will make
clear to the reader. X is
perfectly sufficient, more concise, less confusing and very elegant. It
totally accords with my
experience and, more importantly, if 'dq' is indefinable (as Pirsig claims
it is) then why try to
define it in the first place with terms like quality and dynamic which have
all sorts of definite
connotations. If it is indefinable then leave it undefined for goodness sake.
ROGER:
Yep you are canny. But the trick was never intended to be simply linguistic
(though it does work that way too). I do agree that the term 'Quality'
brings with it a lot of baggage (though a lot less than 'morality').
However, it does tie together into an interesting self referential knot.
That which exists is that with Quality,
that which evolves is that with Quality.
experience itself is Quality.
Quality is the universe,
the process of its development,
its means of recognizing itself,
and the judge of the term best suitable to label the universe, the process
and the ability to ........
Sounds kind of cute and 'sophist'icated, I agree. But it also matches up
with prety well everything I have read on modern scientific theory. In fact
you yourself suggested something similar........
THEO/STRUAN:
"Modern science and philosophy is ultimately concerned with relations, not
with substance...."
ROGER:
In fact I concur completely. I see 'value,' or better yet, 'relation' as
being superior terms than 'Quality' or 'Morality.' If I was to write my own
metaphysics I have always thought I would use one of these first two terms.
SUMMARY: In conclusion I concur with you on most points, though not always
for the same reason, nor do I agree at all with your dismissal of the MOQ due
to these points. The score so far IMHO:
Free will: The MOQ works great, Pirsig botched the explanation
Ethics: The MOQ works as well as anything, Pirsig oversold in the 1st half of
the book
Originality: Not much in the pieces, but great in the package
Strawman: Pirsig and the MOQ were correct that SOM lingers and permeates
western society. Struan is right that it shouldn't.
Terminology: We should consider the term 'relation' rather than 'quality,'
especially with a more scientific audience.
Let me know your thoughts.
Roger
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 - 16:00:36 BST