From: Kevin (kevin@xap.com)
Date: Mon Oct 14 2002 - 19:03:49 BST
Greetings all,
First of all, thanks to Matt for another terrific discussion starter.
Please don't stop posting, I find these threads infinitely more valuable
than arguing politics. Even if some are offended by offering critiques
of MOQ, I think the conversation is strengthened rather than weakened by
such activity.
Platt quoted Pirsig:
"Quality is a direct experience independent of and prior to intellectual
abstractions. Quality is indivisible, indefinable and unknowable in the
sense that there is a knower and a known, but a metaphysics can be
none of these things. A metaphysics must be divisible, definable, and
knowable, or there isn't any metaphysics. Since a metaphysics is
essentially a kind of dialectical definition and since Quality is
essentially outside definition, this means that a "Metaphysics of
Quality" is essentially a contradiction in terms, a logical
absurdity.(5)"
Kevin:
To me this is an important observation. It goes back to the ZMM vs. LILA
thread. Namely, there is a real difference between the Quality insight
of ZMM and the MOQ of LILA.
To me, there has to be agreement that these are totally different works.
I think it's very clear that Pirsig knowingly indulges himself in the
very SOMish activity of defining a metaphysics to support his Quality
insight. The language of MOQ is very SOMish, IMO, and completely
susceptible to Matt's critique. There is definitely an inner-outer split
to the MOQ, but I think Pirsig knowingly and willingly subjects himself
to this duality for the sake of structuring his Morality arguments. He
admits that Quality can't be defined or analyzed, but can't seem to
resist the lure of using his "analytical knife" to do just what he says
is not a Quality activity--creating a metaphysics.
I think it's often forgotten that Pirsig wrote books to explain his
thinking to the uninitiated. He uses SOMish language and logic because
he assumes his audience will understand that. He can't logically assume
they are all mystics, Buddhists, etc and will understand his reasoning
unless he uses SOM tools to explain them. He also assumes they aren't
professional philosophers.
I think, in this regard, it's lends credence to the criticism that MOQ
is NOT a complete metaphysics. I'm not sure Pirsig intended it to be. He
was clearly attempting to apply his Quality insight to the specific
questions of Morality. He might have written another book to address the
effect of the Quality insight to Epistemology or Consciousness or any of
the other Philosophical hot button issues. I suspect he didn't find them
terribly practical or important. In that sense, I too find Pirsig to be
a pragmatist.
In short, a critique of MOQ is NOT a critique of Quality. I really think
they are separate things. That's why I feel it's healthy to discuss
(perhaps even refute) ideas presented in MOQ without throwing out the
bathwater that is the Quality insight.
With hope,
Kevin
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 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 10:37:57 GMT