Hi Kevin, Rick, Dave, Struan, Rog and etc.'s
Sorry people but this is a bit of a long one.
On 9 Mar 99, at 10:52, Kevin Sanchez wrote:
> If you wish to label the morality of MOQ, justice, I have no qualms except
> to proscribe extreme caution - which I am sure you will use.
It's more a case that the notion of Justice is contained and supported by the MOQ, but I
certainly take your point about use of terminology.
> The Metaphysics of Quality is a moral philosophy, but need not concern
> itself with specific moral stances. We should apply MOQ to specifics but
> not apply specifics to MOQ. This may sound like equivocation but I feel
> that metaphysics should solely concern itself with abstract/general
> principles solely relating to its own inner-workings.
The main problem here is in the way that Pirsig formulated the MOQ. At the same time that
he has provided the foundations of the MOQ he has also declared that the fundamental
principles of the metaphysics are ethical or moral principles. This is not the usual way of
going about things in philosophy. Further, he has also declared that all activities are,
basically, moral activities. So when you say:
> The key term which
> defines this pratice is "meta"; physics concerns itself with the specific,
> metaphysics with the general. Cognition conerns itself with the specific;
> meta-cognition with the general. Philosophy; meta-philosophy, etc. This
> may sound meaningless but I also feel that the integrity of MOQ requires
> severing any non-abstract principles within it.
we should consider that examining the general principles of the MOQ and testing specific
instances against the general principles are both correct and equally valuable. By severing
the non-abstract principles we run the risk of failing to ensure that the abstract or general
principles are correct.
> Specific applications can
> be wrong, but the general principles should be perfect. LilaSquad cannot
> perfect the general principles if it concentrates on specifics.
Surely it is in the application of specifics to the general that the general principles are
refined and clarified. This is the case for an Empirical approach to any system of ethical
activity.
> For example, LilaSquad should not ask specifically, "Is capital punishment
> justified under MOQ?" but generally, "What principles can we use to
> determine whether capital punishment is justified?" It may appear trivial,
> but if we misapply MOQ, I should hope that at least we haven't
> misinterpreted it.
It is my own opinion that both approaches are relevant. Examination of the MOQ from both
perspectives is an interactive method, each one providing feedback for the other which in
turn refines both the general principles and the means of applying the system.
On 10 Mar 99, at 1:39, Kevin Sanchez wrote:
> I do not state, however, that praxis is not valuable - indeed I feel it is
> invaluable to the life of any society. But practices and specific stances
> seem untopical to this particular forum. In my opinion, Lila Squad should
> produce an accurate general philosophy - specifics only cloud the path.
> Quibbling about trivialities only serves to trip us all up.
Part of the reason for starting another mailing list (lilasquad) was to provide an additional
forum for careful and structured examination of more specific aspects of the MOQ. One
'problem' of the approach taken is that only one issue per month is examined, but this does
allow for a reasonable length of time to examine a single issue in as much depth as can be
accommodated. With this list (moq_discuss) we are free to discuss any aspect of the MOQ
in any way that we want. So there is no problem with performing both of the previously
mentioned activities. The combination of both lists has the potential for providing both
what is wanted and what is needed for understanding all aspects of the MOQ.
> To answer the claim that specifics instances test general theories, I
> would agree to an extent. Widely agreed upon analogies and everyday common
> experience can definately be drawn from to illustrate the accuracy of
> general theories. But can one really argue that a debate, for instance, on
> MOQ's stance on religion or capital punishment or abortion tests the
> validity of our theory.
How else do we test the validity of the general theory. There is no need to stick to a single
theme on moq_discuss - multiple threads can be easily accommodated. Choose whichever
topic or approach suits you best. Whichever approach you take, it should be fun and this
is the way that I would wish that both lists develop.
On 10 Mar 99, at 8:13, David L Thomas wrote:
> I echo these thoughts. I have recently started to asks myself with MOQ,
> what's left for philosophy? At the same time thinking, Why is there so
> much disagreement over this point or that point? Why didn't Pirsig say
> something about this? Most often disagreement is the about levels, morals,
> and their interrelationships.
Pirsig did say something very relevant on exactly this point in an email to Diana on 20th
September 1997 which was posted to the Squad:
DIANA:
I got an email about the Lila Squad from Robert M Pirsig. Sadly he declined to join the list
but here are his comments:
"I stumbled across your stunning Athens Forum site last night and called Wendy to the
computer. When we had finished reading it all we took out a bottle of cognac and
celebrated. The MOQ is at last out of my hands. Other people are at last sustaining it on a
continuing social basis. I can disappear tomorrow and it will keep on going. This is a major
event in its history.
All day I've wondered how much I should participate, and the Zen answer keeps repeating
itself: "Don't! You will just shut everyone else up. They'll all sit back and wait for the great
author to speak and that is the worst thing that could happen." The material for the MOQ
is not something I invented out of thin air. It has been lying dormant within the culture for
centuries. I have mined probably less than one per cent of what is there. The best readers
will pay minimal attention to what I have found and maximal attention to what I have
missed.
That's where the excitement is. "
The mandate of moq.org is to provide the means to discuss the 1% that Pirsig found and
discover the 99% that he missed. That's a bloody big task for a bunch of (talented)
amateurs and probably ultimately impossible but what the hell, it'll be fun trying - and later
on we can have breakfast at Milliways!!!!!
Keep on Chooglin'
Horse
MOQ Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:54 BST