Hi Rob,
>Ok, I'm going to try.
Thanks ! ;)
> SOM is somehow different from the MOQ. And when we talk about intellectual
>values, truth is the paramount term used to describe something. Being
right,
>that is what intellectual values are all about.
Were. Before the MOQ, being right was what intellectual values were all
about. After the MOQ, being right doesn't make sense any more (in fact, it
didn't make sense even before, but we went on anyway). Absolute truth was
already on shaky ground, but nothing had come to replace it. Then the MOQ
came and replaced "true" with "better". And that changed it all.
You cannot have your cake AND eat it. You cannot have the MOQ *and* SOM.
It's self-defeating, because they are maps with different coordinates. It
seems to be what Bodvar (and yourself, in this post) try to do, but it is
useless because the MOQ doesn't *need* a SOM crutch. It stands perfectly
well on its two feet, thank you. See next paragraph.
> Right about the sun and the
>moon, right about the earth, right about gravity, right about how being
>right is more important than being conformist. But if the idea of quality
>itself is of greater value than truth or being right according to the
>metaphysics of quality, doesn't that mean that something has just overtaken
>intellectual values according to our system? Quality itself has become of
>higher value than Truth.
It's more than that : Quality has REDEFINED truth. Now truth simply means
"of high intellectual quality". And that's enough. Whenever you used
"truth", you can replace it with "high intellectual quality", without
changing anything else.
And it fits. If you think it doesn't, please expain why.
[snip]
> We're left with a void, intellectual values and truth applying to quality,
>and with the introduction of a quality framework, quality being of higher
>value than truth. So where does the MOQ itself fit into its own framework?
>It values quality more than truth, so in a quality framework, it is
superior
>to intellectual values, because it uses the framework that it is being
rated
>by.
If you use the "redefined" truth like I've stated above (and which is
exactly what Pirsig himself said), truth is simply a species of Quality,
nothing else. As such, the MOQ isn't superior to Intellect, but simply a
high-quality intellectual pattern.
[snip]
>You can say the MOQ is
>intellectual, because it is true, but you'd be missing the point.
But if you say the MOQ is intellectual because it's made of concepts (my
position), you do *not* have to say it's true, you just have to say it is of
higher quality than the various branches of SOM philosophy. Something about
which we can then argue about using rhetorics.
>The MOQ isn't high quality because it is true.
Which, from my position, would be a complete tautology...
>The MOQ is high quality because it is QUALITY.
... except for the fact that Quality has been equated with the MOQ and that
therefore, Quality has been defined, killing it in the process, and creating
another Absolute Philosophy from which there's no escape.
You see, if anything contradicts or criticizes the MOQ, in the SOLAQI
interpretation you can ALWAYS accuse it of being "intellectual", and
therefore SOMish, and therefore morally inferior. It makes the MOQ totally
impervious to attacks, criticisms, or revisions. You have, in effect,
another religion which claims that all truths are relative EXCEPT ITS OWN,
which is beyond criticism because it is QUALITY. And since Quality cannot be
discussed, then of course the MOQ (SOLAQI version) cannot be put in
question. And if you try to refute this preposterous claim, then of course
you can be accused of not understanding Quality, which should be obvious to
everyone, but apparently not for you, poor soul...
But hey, perhaps it's because I'm right-handed ! ;-)
OTOH, if, as Pirsig himself said, the MOQ is another, BETTER metaphysics,
then it has only the moral advantage of being an intellectual pattern of
better quality than the previous SOMs. Its "betterness" cannot be "proven",
of course, but we can debate about it (rhetorics, as always ;). What's more,
we can come up with even "better" answers in the future. The MOQ is not "the
end of history".
So thanks for trying, Rob. ;) We'll now wait to see if Bodvar agrees with
your interpretation of his SOLAQI which, at least, had the advantage of
being clearly enunciated (always a worthy effort ! :).
Denis
PS : Of course, I also totally agree with 3WD's post of the 3rd of this
month "BOMOQ or just MOQ?". The fact that SOLAQI releguates most of humanity
into a moral sub-class of social animals (along with apes, I guess) has
always struck me as morally repellent, and was one of my first objections to
it. That all cultures do not value the Intellectual level is obvious, but to
say that some humans are devoid of it... Also, as I said in my post of
28/11/2001 to Omar, the fact that a society does not support the moral
superiority of the intellectual level does NOT mean that it does not possess
individuals in whom intellectual values are dominant.
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 - 16:01:41 BST