Hi Wim:
Believe it or not, we're getting there. You wrote:
> I'm a bit surprised to learn from your 27/11 10:48 -0500 posting
> that you're "not a fan of the 'story telling' explanation of how
> we manage to negotiate our way through life" and that you neither
> "consider discussing principles of a metaphysics a story-telling
> exercise".
> I chose my metaphor of a story because you wrote 29/10
> 13:15 -0500:
> "As noted above, our thinking in language is subjective-object
> thinking. From that I see no escape other than understanding by
> means of art. (That's why Pirsig used a novel form instead of an
> academic paper.)"
> Isn't "Lila", being a novel, both a discussion of principles of a
> metaphysics and a story-telling exercise???
Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. I'm opposed to the postmodernist
idea that reality is a social construction, that is, a fabricated story, and
it's corollary that one man's (or society's) story is as good as another.
>> "For me it's more of a search for an elegant intellectual
>> pattern." (you 27/11 10:48 -0500 again)
> For me too (even if I would prefer to use "system of ideas"
> instead of "intellectual pattern" to prevent misunderstanding
> patterned quality for an object-with-quality you can search for)
> and I fail to see why I shouldn't describe this search as a
> story-telling exercise.
You can describe it as a story-telling exercise if you wish. I hope I've
clarified why I don't describe that way. Same with "system of ideas." I
prefer "intellectual patterns."
>> "My goal here is to interpret the master's work" (you 27/11
>> 10:48 -0500 again)
> In other words: your goal is the philosophology "the master"
> criticizes in chapter 26 of "Lila"?!?
Yes, I plead guilty to practicing philosophology. I'm no Aristotle, Kant,
Wilber or Pirsig. I couldn't write an original metaphysics if my life
depended on it.
> I, like Pirsig, prefer creative thinking, creating my own MoQ ,
> comparing it with Pirsig's MoQ, see where it differs and drawing
> conclusions as to how it should be further developed. My
> conclusion (in my postings to you and Marco) was that the MoQ
> needs a better meta-ethics. I for one am not really happy with
> Pirsig’s answer to “How can we know what we should do?”. There
> should be more to it than "keeping our hearts and minds open to
> DQ", taking it out of the realm of "discussion of principles of a
> metaphysics", as DQ is indefinable according to Pirsig.
I'm not understanding you here. I don't see what "knowing what we
should do" has to do with "principles of metaphysics." Are you talking
about metaphysics in general or Pirsig's MOQ in particular? If the latter,
there is much said about morality in the MOQ. If you are seeking to
create ethical "guidelines" as to how you, as an individual, ought to
conduct your affairs, limiting the concept of morality to your personal
behavior, I don't see where the MOQ will be much help. We've been
around that barn many times on this site.
>By the way, has your goal changed since you wrote 2/7 10:47 -0400
>> "I think Pirsig's hypocrisy does indeed damage the veracity of
>> his metaphysics. ... I will now reexamine the MOQ in the light of of
>> an author who may be pulling our collective legs." ...?!? Or has
>> this re-examination showed you that "keeping our hearts and minds
> >open to DQ ... is really Pirsig’s only advice on 'what to do'",
> >something you apparently didn't see 2/7?
Yes, I have reexamined and concluded that the last thing Pirsig
intended was to lay down a checklist of moral commandments that
every individual should adhere to or be locked up. Instead, his
metaphysics is an attempt to provide a new intellectual framework with
which to view and interpret experience. In that he has succeeded
beautifully IMHO.
> You also wrote 2/7 that "the MOQ can be interpreted in ways to
> justify our moral preconceptions (meaning it can be all things to
> all people and thus meaningless)". You seemed disappointed then.
> Isn't it time then to try and create (collectively) a MoQ with a
> better meta-ethics that CANNOT be interpreted so arbitrarily?
If one defines morality as solely the provence of individual conduct,
(which most people do), then indeed the MOQ can be interpreted any
old which way you want. I've pointed out my objection to this limited sort
of view of morality so many times that I wonder how I can make it any
clearer that the morality of personal behavior in terms of Do's and
Don'ts is NOT what the MOQ is all about.
> Your amendments of Pirsig's MoQ ("Personally, I would prefer that
> he let up on the immorality of eating meat. Also, I think he
> erred in assigning Islamic hatred of the West to our release of
> biological forces. Instead what really ticks them off is our
> intellectual superiority. Finally, I have suggested a fifth moral
> level of Art") seem too limited to justify agreement with my
> statement of 6/11 22:27 +0100:
> "The fact that 'Pirsig's metaphysical somersault' (Bo 6/11 9:04
> +0100) wasn't complete and that he still confused things and
> patterns at the end of 'Lila' doesn't excuse us for making the
> same mistake." Do you really agree with that statement??
I'm in favor of anything we can do to clarify the MOQ. I am not in favor of
making it a "go-gooders" manual. If you think otherwise, more power to
you. In fact, I encourage you to give it your best shot.
Best regards,
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:39 BST