Hi Diana, Horse, Jonathan, Anthony, Bo and LS:
Excellent responses to "Diana's Gauntlet" (prove DQ is not
subjective) from Horse, Jonathan and Bo. I think we all share
Diana's frustration in not being able to make obvious to everyone
what we see in the MoQ. Part of the problem is, of course, that
many people are convinced that there are no ultimate answers to
life's major questions. "To each is own" has become the
metaphysics of the masses, also expressed as "whatever."
Relativism has conquered the day, exalted to the status of
ultimate philosophical wisdom. Against the collective shoulder
shrug against all attempts to be "serious" (unless the subject up
for discussion is job related), our attempts to "spread the good
word" will, I'm afraid, fall unheeded like raindrops on
Jonathan's mountain. :-)
Yet, there's hope, whether in the education of the masses to
science as Horse suggests or Jonathan's subtle "slipping" of MoQ
concepts into greater prominence or Bo's challenge to ignore SOM
criticisms and embrace the MoQ wholeheartedly for what it is, a
revolution. Moreover, global voices are being raised concerning
the dangers of the "whatever" philosophy, notably Vaclav Havel of
the Czech Republic and the recently released "Encyclical of Faith
and Reason" from the Vatican.
Then there's the LS itself, especially when it adds to its Forum
such outstanding contributions as Anthony's "Pirsig's Metaphysics
of Quality." Here in a clear, concise, compelling presentation
one finds the MoQ illuminated so brightly that doubters must run
screaming for cover into the no-nothing shadows of subjectivity.
What’s more, within it's blazing pages is a pivotal clue to
meeting Diana's challenge. To quote from Robert Pirsig's letters
to Anthony on page 12:
"The word 'quality' is superior to 'oneness' and 'nothingness'
because it is impossible for scientists to reject as metaphysical
claptrap. They try, but they cannot get away with saying there
are no values in the world. Even a so-so-philosopher can cut them
to pieces dialectically ... The Metaphysics of Quality is
valuable because it provides a central term that the Western,
scientifically structured mind cannot dismiss. If Dynamic Quality
were merely called 'God' or 'oneness' (scientists) would have
shoved it out of ... bounds without question. But they can't
shove Quality out of bounds. Mystic or not, they can't deny it
exists. They cannot eliminate it as a meaningful term."
Now if our job as Diana has defined it is to free Quality from
subjectivity, we must (to paraphrase Pirsig) discover stratagems
for overcoming huge static SOM forces and find some ambiguity in
the SOM structure where weak Dynamic forces can tip the balance
towards a better metaphysics. What more potent ambiguity than the
fact that scientists "cannot get away with saying there are no
values."?
Here may be the beginnings of response to Diana's Gauntlet along
with those previously suggested. At the very least we now have
the brilliant light of Anthony's paper to further strengthen the
power of the Lila Squad which, lest we forget, began as just a
flickering candle in Diana's hands a little more than a year ago.
That alone says we’re making progress.
Best, Platt
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:35 BST