>Greetings,
Struan,
Thanks for the comments on the review. Also, many thanks to Horse for
transferring it to the web so well and bothering with all my "last
minute" revisions in the last month or so. A high quality job indeed.
There were a number of issues with Struan’s comments which have already
been addressed by Sam, Horse, Platt, Squonk and Denis. I have been
generally impressed by everyone’s replies though as some criticisms
of Struan's are personal remarks particularly directed to me, I have
written the following response. I apologise if I’ve repeated any points
already dealt with.
>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.
Both absolutely true. In my review, I was putting my lecturer’s hat
on to indicate that John’s essay was a useful one for my students in
seeing how SOM typically views the MOQ. The review of John’s essay
was read by my Head of Department before being submitted to MOQ.org
so if there was any problem in stating myself as a lecturer (or
otherwise) he would have been the first to let me know.
>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
It does, as my paragraphs below indicate.
>and the kudos attached to being a lecturer at a reasonably good
>English university might lead people to infer otherwise. The
>Department of Philosophy at Liverpool University does *not* have
>an Anthony McWatt on its staff.
Actually, it does. If the University STAFF contact list is brought
up under University of Liverpool’s home page and my name is searched
for, it will state:
Anthony McWatt, Philosophy, ant11@liv.ac.uk
>They do have a student there called Anthony McWatt…
They certainly do as well, as I’m still completing a Ph.D. Its pretty
common for post-grads to also lecture so I can’t believe that this dual
status is beyond your ken.
>"and he has spent the greater part of the last decade studying for a
>PhD."
As far as I’m aware this isn’t on any University of Liverpool page and
was derived by Struan from my old MOQ.org biography.
>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 ZMM,
>which lasts for 10 weeks and involves one evening, two hours per
>week. This is the one Anthony takes.
I've been a part-time tutor with the University of Liverpool's
Philosophy Department since October 1998 and the ZMM/MOQ class
has run since January 1999. Though the MOQ course is run FOR
the University's Continuing Education Department, it's run and
monitored BY the Philosophy Department.
I don’t know about the other subjects offered by Continuing
Education, but I do know that ALL philosophy courses (no matter
where they’re held) are academically equal to a first year
philosophy undergraduate course. Moreover, each course must be
officially endorsed by the University's ‘Faculty of Arts Board
of Studies’ (with references from the Head of the Philosophy
Department and another member of its academic staff). Any of
my students, therefore, if they are prepared to write essays
and put the attendance in, can use my course towards a
University (of Liverpool) B.A. degree.
Unfortunately, there's sometimes a bias (as indicated in the
above smear by Struan) against University evening courses in
that they are ‘open to all’ and often cover very esoteric
subjects. Yet, it’s important for an university to relate to
all people in its immediate environment (think of how an
institution would be viewed if it ignored the local community?)
and some of the most inventive courses (possibly even mine!)
have an opportunity to run in an environment away from the more
restrictive practices of the typical undergrad course.
For instance, in the quest for high Quality experiences, I've
taken my students to the Theatre, to listen to jazz, the
Liverpool Philharmonic to listen to classical music, the Phil.
Forum to hear Indian music, and the Tate Art Gallery as well as
having a number of speakers in ranging from my Head of
Department to NLP people (a mistake but still interesting), a
Buddhist philosophy tutor, a philosophy tutor specialising in
William James and Dr Robert Harris (the MOQ business guru) from
America, who has visited three times. This range of events and
speakers would be difficult to arrange within the confines of a
standard undergrad course.
Finally, if there is any doubt about my abilities as a philosophy
lecturer, Professor Stephen Clark (the Head of Liverpool's
Philosophy Department) has written the following concerning the
MOQ session he attended:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Module Title: Zen & the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance (LV211-508)
Session: 2000-1
"The class is a lively one - a typical Continuing Education mixture
of people with a passionate interest in the particular topic and
others who are curious about this, or any other philosophical topic."
"McWatt is clearly on good terms with the class, and able to pick up
questions and criticisms easily. His long-running correspondence
with Robert Pirsig and other students of the works (ZMM and LILA),
gives him an authoritative background from which to resolve issues
about the author's meaning."
"Since the reviewer was himself contributing a paper on that
particular night, this is not a typical 'non-participant review'.
Instead, the visiting speaker (so to speak) can simply testify that
the occasion was friendly, that searching questions were asked and
problems followed up, and that McWatt managed both the formal and
the informal aspects of the meeting with courtesy and intelligence."
Professor Stephen Clark
19th January 2001
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe not surprisingly, Clark offered me undergraduate teaching work
well over a year ago but unfortunately, I have been too busy with the
Ph.D. and the ZMM/MOQ Course. The latter (though technically two
hours a week) takes about two days preparation for each session.
Noting that Struan states, in his own "bio" that he is "Master in the
Faculty of Religious Studies with a special interest in Philosophy
and Ethics, at one of England's top fee-paying boarding schools" rather
than "secondary school teacher" shows that it’s him, not me, who is
concerned with the "kudos attached to" academic status.
As Struan has helpfully highlighted my MOQ Course, I might as well
state now, that when the Ph.D. is completed next year, I am
considering running an MOQ course on the Internet. If people would be
interested in taking such a course, could they let me know; giving me
some idea of what areas would interest them, the academic level they’d
be interested in (e.g. M.A., B.A. or lower) and, how much they’d be
prepared to pay in fees. This feedback would be very much appreciated.
Anyway, to return to Struan’s comments on my review:
>Philosophically speaking, I did not enjoy Anthony's review of John's
>essay one bit.
Well, that’s must be a good sign judging by your previous contributions
to this site. The review was designed to show that the value of
Quality isn’t lost by treating it as having a concrete or material
existence but, quite the contrary; that its value is lessened when
treating it as having just an abstract existence. That’s the whole
point of the MOQ and, I was trying to convey to John that you
immediately leave the system, if, as he does, you assert otherwise.
>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.
I don’t state that the shift from SOM to the MOQ is an amazing
revelation. I just make the factual statement that Bodvar and I
have an MOQ perspective of reality while John has an SOM perspective.
Having said this, as the MOQ is very similar to the Cittramatra
tradition of Buddhist philosophy (though, minus the reincarnation
and plus the theory of cosmological evolution), I think Patrick
Gawley’s assertion that the MOQ can be a finger pointing to the
moon of enlightenment has some truth in it.
However, this isn’t due to a supernatural "amazing revelation"
but down to a process of careful rationalisation. Rahula (1959)
makes the important point that Buddhism is a realistic philosophy
and I think this point transposes to the MOQ:
"Buddhism is neither pessimistic or optimistic. If anything at all,
it is realistic, for it takes a realistic view of life and of the
world. It looks at things objectively. It does not falsely lull
you into living in a fool’s paradise (e.g. SOM’s technology-biased
society), nor does it frighten and agonize you with all kinds of
imaginary fears and sins (e.g. traditional theistic religion). It
tells you exactly and objectively what you are and what the world
around you is."
>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."
Firstly, the quote Struan which refers to (in the Routledge
Encyclopaedia, is in brackets to indicate it is a secondary or
defunct definition of the term) actually reads, in full:
"(An older and broader use counts as idealist 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.)"
And that the same article also notes that:
"Idealism is now usually understood in philosophy as the view that
mind is the most basic reality and that the physical world exists
only as an appearance to or expression of mind, or as somehow mental
in its inner essence."
The MOQ does not assert that the "basic reality" is mind but perceives
intellectual patterns and inorganic patterns as being derived from the
"basic reality" of Quality. It’s definitely not a form of idealism
as usually understood by this term in modern academic philosophy.
>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.
I think this would be worthwhile as long as discussions about idealism
didn’t lose the MOQ in the process. I think many idealists do get
close to the MOQ but none including Fichte state that the Absolute
is fundamentally composed of value. This is important as Bradley
thinks that the belief in the absolute requires an initial act of
faith while no faith is required for Quality because (as Platt is
getting at) you can not conceive of or live in a world in which nothing
is better than anything else.
>Equally concerning is Anthony's disdain for the scientific >community,
rightly identified by John as emanating from Pirsig…
A serious misrepresentation of myself and Pirsig; the sort of lazy comment
which occasionally lets down John’s essays. Some of my best students are
scientists and I highly value their contributions to my class. I
certainly don’t have disdain for them; just disdain for SOM.
As far as Pirsig is concerned, in ZMM, he shows the disadvantages of
science and technology but this is to indicate that they should not be
dismissed entirely, but that their metaphysical foundations require
expansion to incorporate the aesthetic and the spiritual.
The generally positive sentiment towards science and technology by ZMM,
is recognised by the author and engineer Samuel Florman who thought
that technology had been represented only lightly in literature. In
Paul Sharke’s 1998 M.Sc. thesis he notes that:
"From a mere handful of books dealing with this topic, (Florman) named
‘The Control of Nature’ (1989), by John McPhee, ‘Zen and the Art of
Motorcycle Maintenance’ (1974), by Robert Pirsig, and The Soul of a
New Machine’ (1981), by Tracy Kidder, as being among the best examples
of a literary expression of engineering."
Another example of an endorsement of ZMM from the scientific community
is the Noble Prize Winner in Chemistry, Professor Harry Kroto. When
asked, at the end of a plenary meeting for the E.P.S.R.C. in late 1998,
whether he had read ZMM, he replied: "Yes, and that’s what it’s all
about!". The questioner was a student of mine, Dr Mathias Brust who
is presently a chemistry lecturer at the University of Liverpool.
Kroto also noted to me in an e-mail dated 20th August 2001:
"If we take Zen as alluding to what is in my mind i.e. ME and everything
that I am AND motorcycle maintenance as (hands on) interaction between
ME with the real tangible physical world outside ME including: everybody
else; the world; the Universe etc. then there is essentially nothing
else to talk about. So the title basically implies it is not only a
theory of everything (TOE) but also a theory of what is in my mind and
ME in particular as well - anyway that is my interpretation - so its a
brilliant title."
>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.
Well, the above paragraph is absolutely crystal clear. A fine piece
of what made SOM’s linguistic analysis the sensational philosophy of
the 20th century it was. I don’t know, in his post from the 6th
December, why Denis was so worried about Struan’s rhetorical skills!
>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…
A good bit of Northrop here, from "The Logic of Sciences and
Humanities" (1946), Macmillan.
>…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.
I’m not disparaging the "average scientist’s" intellectual abilities,
just some of the metaphysical assumptions of SOM science. Looking
at global warming, the proliferation of nuclear weapons etc, I doubt
that anyone could credibly maintain that the values of science aren’t
open to improvement.
>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.
I actually asked "How many members of the Church of Reason actually
recognise that fields such as physics contain terms which aren’t
defined?", I didn’t make any particular claim about the numbers of
scientists who recognise that science contain undefined terms.
Being such an disciple of linguistic philosophy, I thought you would
know the difference between a question and a claim.
Actually, with the massive volume of literature on linguistic
philosophy in mind, one of the best works that should be essential
reading by anyone suspicious of this particular Anglo-American
tradition is Ernest Gellner’s hilarious "Emperor’s new coat"
critique "Words and Things" (1959). It’s one of my top ten
philosophy books and it details read as follows, for anyone
interested:
"Words and Things, A Critical Account of Linguistic Philosophy and
Study in Ideology" Gollancz ,London and Beacon, Boston. (Also see
correspondence in The London Times from 10th November to 23rd
November, 1959.)
>These complete misrepresentations or misunderstandings of both
>philosophy and science might be acceptable for a layperson,
Not that you’ve misrepresented me, Struan. Though, of course, an
honourable philosopher as yourself would never stoop so low.
>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.
Well, IMHO, John doesn’t have the "right perspective" and my review
attempts to argue why this is the case. Whether or not, this is
successful, at least, I didn’t resort to using ad hominen comments
as per your good self.
>2) He uses the mythical 'catch-all' SOM to write off anything he
>dislikes, as if this somehow even addresses the points made.
John’s essay specifically states that: "quality enters the physical
universe with the coming of life."
i.e. that an universe divided between an objective physical realm
and a subjective qualitative realm.
i.e. SOM.
>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.
Well, if he doesn’t, please quote another philosopher who
specifically states the primary ground stuff of reality is Value or
Quality. I’d be genuinely interested in looking at them for the P
h.D. Though as Platt notes: "Cite at least a portion of it in a
truly scholarly manner, giving titles of the works and page numbers
where specific quotations may be found."
>4) He confuses his own lack of understanding of scientists, for
>scientists' lack of understanding of science.
As mentioned above some of my best students and correspondents are
scientists. I don’t state that scientists' lack an understanding
of science, I was wondering how many scientists actually recognise
that fields such as physics contain terms which aren’t undefined.
>5) The implication that he is speaking from some position of
>authority is at best misleading.
Probably the nastiest smear from Struan’s e-mail. To quote
Professor Clark again:
"McWatt is clearly on good terms with the class, and able to
pick up questions and criticisms easily. His long-running
correspondence with Robert Pirsig and other students of the
works (ZMM and LILA), gives him an authoritative background
from which to resolve issues about the author's meaning."
(Struan. Look up Clark’s CV on our Department’s website and
then compare it to your own philosophical career. Now who
do you think has the most credibility in judging my authority
on Pirsig and the MOQ?)
>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)
So another "class" e-mail from Struan where he avoids approaching
philosophical issues in depth and, instead (as with most of his
recent replies to Horse, Platt, Squonk and Denis) resorts to ad
hominem remarks. The friction this produces is unfortunately
causing alienation with newer members such as Omar which is not
Quality.
Still, Struan, whatever your motives, at least you bothered to
produce some comments on my review. Moreover, I’m looking forward
to reading your answer to Squonk’s question about what Quality is.
It will be especially interesting to compare how you deal with it
in comparison with Pirsig.
Till the next time,
Anthony.
_______________________________________________________________________
Never pay another Internet phone bill!
Freeserve AnyTime, for all the Internet access you want, day and night, only £12.99 per month.
Sign-up at http://www.freeserve.com/time/anytime
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