Hello Struan,
I am not at all sure if you are going to enjoy this either?
But we were not put on the Earth to be happy where we? ;)
In a message dated 12/1/01 8:28:51 PM GMT Standard Time, struan@clara.co.uk
writes:
<< Subj: MD Anthony's blind propaganda
Date: 12/1/01 8:28:51 PM GMT Standard Time
From: struan@clara.co.uk (Struan Hellier)
Sender: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
Reply-to: moq_discuss@moq.org
To: MOQ_DISCUSS@moq.org
Greetings,
Philosophically speaking, I did not enjoy Anthony's review of John's
essay one bit. The immediate accusation of not being party to the
amazing revelation that takes one out of the mythical 'SOM' and into moq
land where one remains forever converted is in itself deeply
objectionable.
If one studies Plato it can be helpful if one attempts to try and think as
Plato did?
I understand this is not easy and may actually lead to confusion if one is
not careful?
But i assume you get my drift?
For example, in studying Plato one would accept, at least for the fun of it,
that there was an ultimate Universal from which all intellectual value
streams?
Later, one may wish to study Aristotle?
And now one must try, as best one may, to drop the Plato and disagree in an
Ultimate Universal of the Platonic?
We replace a primary intellectual value stasis with a primary objectively
defined motion.
And so it is with the SOM and MOQ.
There is nothing to be objected to.
Philosophy requires the exploration of ideas; even if the ideas themselves
are questioned at a very deep level.
More concerning still is Anthony's continued insistence, typical of this
forum, that the moq is original in placing value as the fundamental
ground stuff of the universe. Contrary to the popular and simplistic
belief prevalent here, which considers Pirsig to have invented some
brilliant new way of looking at things, the original meaning of Idealism
was ('Concise Routledge Encyclopaedia of Philosophy' - London - 2000 -
pg 379):
'any view for which the physical world is somehow unreal compared with
some more ultimate, not necessarily mental, reality conceived as the
source of value, for example Platonic forms'
There may be those who view this matter as you state it?
However, Pirsig tells us that Plato's thought appeared almost identical to
his own to the point of being one and the same?
So how can Pirsig be accused of inventing something new here?
But Platonic forms are not at the top of Plato's hierarchy; The Form of the
Good holds that position, and is said to be beyond understanding.
In this respect DQ (Dynamic Quality) and FOG (Form of the Good) may be one
and the same?
That is to say they are both valid metaphysics?
>From a philosophical point of view, this makes Plato and Pirsig legitimate
study for philosophy students any where in the world?
What is more, when one begins to explore the metaphysical splits Plato and
Pirsig make it becomes apparent that Pirsig has something of originality to
say, for static truth does not enter into his structured thought; truth is
largely a matter of convention - Plato would have non of that even while
admitting FOG is the source of truth!
I would invite those who are interested in taking philosophy further to
explore the work of, among many others, Plato, Fichte, (expelled from
Jena for atheism - he believed that God was the all good essence of all
there is rather than a supreme deity) Schelling ('Material nature and
the mind that knows it are different aspects of the same absolute
good'), Bradley, Kierkegaard, Rosenzweig, Levinas, etc, etc, for an in
depth study of this ancient, modern and indeed perennial Western
tradition.
A bit patronising aren't we?
But i can be just as annoying there so i shall enjoy the irony of it.
Quality does not have aspects, attributes, causal primacy, 'qualities', etc.
All these are intellectual interpretational analogues of a relationship with
Quality.
Quality is concept free.
One cannot even say it is God without blowing it up.
I feel this is where Beasley and yourself get a bit hot under the collar?
Equally concerning is Anthony's disdain for the scientific community,
rightly identified by John as emanating from Pirsig. Anthony wonders
'how many members of the 'Church of Reason' actually recognise that
fields such as physics contain terms which aren't defined.' The simple
answer is almost all of them. Every philosopher and physicist of note is
surely aware that any theory will have at least some undefined terms,
for if all terms were defined we would have to have an infinite
regression of definitions, which is clearly impossible. You could argue
that some terms are defined by other terms which themselves have already
been defined, but this sets up a never-ending circle of words defined by
reference to other words and so on. In other words, we would have to
know a language in order to be able to speak it! It is self-evident to
anyone who thinks about it that some words (at least) will not be
'defined' as such, but 'understood' extra-linguistically and, although
Anthony may like to disagree, your average scientist can think quite
well and is fully aware of the limitations of the terminology he is
using. In fact, given the massive volume of literature on linguistic
philosophy last century and this, I find it difficult to believe that
anyone who has read any modern philosophy could claim what Anthony here
claims.
May i invite you to consider your point about, 'Some undefined terms' here?
The crucial point is that there are not simply 'some,' there is in fact at
least one; and so it shall always be.
Pirsig uses the term Quality for the one.
Science does not use a word for it assumes that one day 'we shall know the
mind of God.'
Provisional you see!
Truth is contingent but one day! One day!
These complete misrepresentations or misunderstandings of both
philosophy and science might be acceptable for a layperson, but Anthony
describes himself as a 'philosophy lecturer at the University of
Liverpool' in his bio and a lecturer of Pirsig's work in his review.
Some clarification is in order, as I would hate to see anyone think that
the moq has academic philosophical respectability when it clearly does
not and the kudos attached to being a lecturer at a reasonably good
English university might lead people to infer otherwise.
There are many individuals studying philosophy all over the world who regard
or imply that philosophy is a second order activity?
Philosophers of science may be in this bag?
Philosophers of mind may also be in this bag?
Anthony is a first order philosopher and we need a few more like him; for he
appears to have a more open attitude than either you or I Struan.
The Department of Philosophy at Liverpool University does *not* have an
Anthony McWatt on its staff. They do have a student there called Anthony
McWatt and he has spent the greater part of the last decade studying for
a PhD. At the 'University of Liverpool Centre for Continuing Education',
anyone can enrol on an evening course for a small fee. The diversity is
immense and hugely creditable. There are classes on 'Classic Albums of
the '60's', 'Greek for Your Vacation', 'Mosses Made Easy', 'An
Introduction to Psychodrama' and 'Crimes of Violence in Cheshire
1600-1800'. You can also sign up for a course on ZAMM, which lasts for
10 weeks and involves one evening, two hours per week. This is the one
Anthony takes.
There is rather more philosophy in the courses you mention than in your own
postings.
Concluding thoughts :-)
1) Anthony uses the age-old fraudster's trick of writing off good
argument by simply dismissing the author as not having the 'right'
perspective.
Not having a good perspective may be a better way of putting it?
Newton's perspective was not as good as Einstein's i gather.
I do not feel this makes Einstein a fraud because he suggested space and time
are relative?
We know feel the speed of light to be slowing on a cosmological level by a
possibly imperceptible degree, but this will not be a fraudster's trick to
account for anomalies in the inflationary model of the universe; it will be
the result of challenging insight.
Suggesting SOM is a philosophicaly low quality idea runs along the same lines.
2) He uses the mythical 'catch-all' SOM to write off anything he
dislikes, as if this somehow even addresses the points made.
SOM presents a primary metaphysical split between Subjects and Objects.
Many arguments in philosophy have this split implicit in them, and to
recognise this does not write the argument off; it rather leads to a better
explanation. i.e. MOQ.
3) He claims that Pirsig has an original view of the ontological primacy
of value. He does not and to claim that he does is risible.
We live in a world in which science is manipulating our very genetic make-up.
It is within this environment that the MOQ offers an original view, because
every day is an original day; 'Today is different and tomorrow the same.'
4) He confuses his own lack of understanding of scientists, for
scientists' lack of understanding of science.
No scientist worth his or her salt would bend data to fit theory would they?
But science does not progress by the study of undifferentiated data; the
scientist creates the paradigm and it is the paradigm of SOM that is being
dismantled.
That does not imply lack of understanding; rather it implies SOM paradigms
have inherent limitations, as the quantum revolution has taught us.
5) The implication that he is speaking from some position of authority
is at best misleading.
Who?
Anthony is an authority upon the work of Pirsig.
He is Doctor to be you shall just have to get used to this, that is assuming
you value the authority of Doctors of philosophy?
6) I think all this must stem from the fact that, as yet, Anthony has
not made the perceptual shift from the moq to the genuine scholarship
that academic philosophers have. Anthony's essay immediately shows the
differences between the two traditions. (Yes that is sarcasm - sorry -
see point 1)
Are there philosophers other than academic ones Struan?
Lovers of wisdom do not have to conform to your standards of what constitutes
and what does not constitute authority, scholarly or otherwise.
Einstein did not conform, Mozart did not conform, Ghandi did not conform.
May the four winds be strewn with your square academics.
Struan
-------------------
Struan Hellier
struan@clara.co.uk
>>
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 - 16:01:40 BST