> DAVID B responds to JOHN B's "DEEPER NEEDS".
> I've taken JOHN B's post from the focus forum and edited it down to
> one page. I've also added headlines to his words. The goal is clarity,
> and hope my tampering doesn't result in any distortions. In fact, I
> was tempted to snip even more and get right to the "deeper needs"
> issue, but these things are always better in CONTEXT so I'll just
> thank you for your patience instead.
>
> JOHN B MAKES A CALL ON THE quality OF THE MOQ
> It seems to me that it is a good old fashioned metaphysics, with an
> excellent assessment of both what and how we 'know'. It does not seem
> to work as a moral compass, nor has it been valuable in settling
> disputes between members of this forum over moral issues. It has many
> weaknesses in the way Pirsig developed it, and I have no hesitation in
> challenging those I see
> to be faulty, while acknowledging its many strengths.
>
> DMB replies to JB's call... I should point out that JOHN B is calling
> it a "good old fashioned metaphysics in response to Denis, who'd
> compared the MOQ to a mythology. And I agree with John. The MOQ is a
> metaphysics that happens to be built around metaphors, but that
> doesn't make it a mythology in Campbell's sense of the word. Its not
> something that can be created consciously. Myths just aren't like
> that. But more to the point... The "moral compass" issue
> that John raises has, I think, two seperate components. Any "weakness"
> in the MOQ itself is different from the views of the "members of this
> forum". To stay with the compass metaphor, it seems to me that some
> folks don't know where they are, where they're going, don't know the
> difference between norrth and south, and can't seem to hold the damn
> thing level. PLUS there's the problem of putting bad facts, or not
> enough information, into the front of our moral analysis. For
> example, the most contentious questions seemed to be about Hiroshima
> and Lewinsky. As snoooty as it seems, I have to say that it was my
> job, my responsibility, and my professional duty to understand both of
> these cases in great detail. (If I can stoop so low as to drop a name,
> I knew Matt Drudge. Matt Drudge was a friend of mine...) And in the
> christmas spirit, let me just say that the facts presented here do not
> reflect the facts as I understand them. And then there is the actual
> operation of the compass....but it'll never solve a disagreement if
> the disagreement is at the front end of the process. You know?
>
> JOHN B MAKES A CALL ON THE quality OF THE DEBATE
> My essay comes after almost a year of active involvement in the MF and
> MD forums, and I
> am, not for the first time, doing a reality check on what this
> involvement has given me. I have
> enjoyed the debates, the occasional stoush, and I have particularly
> enjoyed the opportunity
> to do some sustained thinking and have the results critiqued. The down
> side has been the
> sheer volume of material, some of very high quality indeed, but much
> of it unremarkable, and
> some deplorable.
>
> DMB SAYS the discussion would be better if you posted more often. Hey,
> its all we've got. Each others words. It's limited, but just like the
> MOQ and everything else, what you get out of it depends on what you
> put into it. I agree with your criticism, but the trick is to respond
> to the stuff that you DON'T find deplorable. That's my usual
> strategy. You can try to start a conversation. Count me in no matter
> what the topic is. Or you could find something of interest among the
> good stuff and jump in on that. There IS some good stuff.
>
> JOHN SINGS THE THEME SONG OF THE 20th CENTURY
> Rocky has made his point of view very clear, with a response from
> Diana. Denis mentions
> "our intellectual prison" and Rocky speaks of "introverted ... social
> isolation". This is
> something Pirsig also notes at the end of Lila's Ch22, where he says
> "Sometime after the
> twenties a secret loneliness, so penetrating and so encompassing that
> we are only beginning
> to realize the extent of it, descended upon the land. This scientific,
> psychiatric isolation and
> futility had become a far worse prison of the spirit than the old
> Victorian 'virtue' ever was".
>
> DMB says,,, Yes, this "secret loneliness" is certainly one of
> Pirsig's major themes. Pirsig and other intellectuals tend to exhibit
> this loneliness more profoundly than others, but I think it is
> something everyone feels, even if they don't realize what it is
> they're feeling. I think fundamentalism is a reaction to this same
> loneliness, for example. And its sort of a "psychological fact" that
> people who are a lot smarter than the people around them tend to get
> neurotic. That is, a large IQ discrepancy in any tight social
> situation, like a family, can create all kinds of problems. People
> need other people who are on the same "level". But this new prison of
> psychiatric isolation is about bad metaphysics, and is separate from
> the fact that Pirsig himself, conventionally speaking, is an ugly
> geek.
>
> JOHN B WRITES
> I am by nature both an intellectual and an introvert (an INTP if you
> know the Myers Briggs
> classifications, or a type 5 on the enneagram). I thus enjoy
> intellectual debate more than
> most. Understanding what makes the world tick is important to me. When
> I call the MOQ a
> disaster it is in the context of seeking something which transcends
> the psychiatric isolation
> which Pirsig identifies and fails to address. Dusenberry would't have
> written a metaphysics.
> Pirsig did, and did it well, but it does not meet my deeper needs, for
> connection, for intimacy,
> for dialogue, for the meeting of 'I' and 'Thou'. To the extent that he
> placed quality firmly in the
> centre of things, and overturned the outdated polarities of
> subject-object thinking, he has
> moved in the right direction. This is foundational. But it is not
> enough, and more
> philosophical argument won't move the process on, I fear.
>
> DMB says... Ah, now we're finally getting down to the main issue. I
> dare say your "deeper needs, for connection, for intimacy, for
> dialogue, for the meeting of 'I' and 'Thou'" could ever be met by a
> philosophy or cyber-forum. Well, some of those needs could be taken
> care of, language is a powerful tool and connection and real
> conversation are possible here. I'm tryin'.
>
> But there is a crucial issue at stake here too. To avoid getting
> bogged down in all the details, let me make some seemingly sweeping
> statements about this loneliness. The MOQ is meant to replace the
> cause of this isolation. It replaces SOM's amoral scientific
> objectivity, which is the root source of this secret loneliness.
> Metaphysics won't get you a girl, but you could make some
> friends...some intellectual companionship. I know that thirst. I bet
> that's what motivated the kind folks who run this forum. That's why
> I'm here.
>
> And I think some of what you seek really is already there in Pirsig's
> books, but it has to be gleaned. It doesn't really jump out and is
> only implied in other cases. But in the big picture, the MOQ describes
> a reality where mystical union counts for something real, where all of
> us are on the same journey, where that feeling of rightness and beauty
> in our hearts is concretely connected to the rest of creation. In the
> big picture we're IT. THOU ART THAT. That locked in and looking out
> feeling is a Cartesian hangover, Pirsig has us outside and camping
> under the stars. Not only that, the mystical experience, tht direct
> perception of the ground of being, which shifts the consciousness in
> human beings, is the same creative force behind the evolution of
> everything. The flowering of a mind recapitulates the same principle
> found at every other level. That's the dance of Lila. The dance
> between static and Dynamic. We even see it in the imagery Pirsig
> chose. The sailboat cutting a wake, moved by the wind, headed for the
> ocean. That's not exactly stuffy and isolated, you know. Its downright
> outdoorsy. But you're right its just old fashioned metaphysics, and
> the need for intimacy can only be met by contact with real people.
> You'll never get laid at moq.org, that's for sure.
>
>
> JOHN B's EXISTENTIAL CRISIS?
> Rocky quotes Merton speaking of the 'existential moment' when a child
> discovers "the fact of
> being". This existential reality is very important to me, and much
> neglected by Pirsig. It is at
> least as significant as our discovery of quality, and is an absolute
> 'given'. It just is. But this
> sense of individual being is also isolating. That is a problem for me.
>
> DMB says... Ah, yes, this is at the heart of it. I'm glad we've got
> the phrase "existential moment" to work with here. Stepping outside
> the MOQ for the moment, and speaking more historically, the isolation
> of SOM didn't happen overnight. And it didn't come out of nowhere. But
> in terms of this important moment you seek, we can see this same quest
> arise as the isolation developed. I mean, after Newton, the smart set
> were all Diests. They believed in a remote god who'd created the
> clock-like universe and then stepped away. After Darwin we see the
> first of what can properly be called existentialism and in 1882 god
> was offically pronounced dead. After the horror of WWI existentialism
> really heats up and becomes even more literary than ever, hardly
> recognizable as philosophy in the traditional sense. Then it moved
> into the art world, blah, blah blah.. and now everybody is an
> existentialist in a way.
> The thing is, its the fault of our world view. Its caused by SOM, a
> flawed perception of out condition and of reality itself. Pirsig's MOQ
> puts that "exitstential moment" back into the picture, and gives it a
> rather prominant place too. Waking from the illusion of isolation is
> part of the picture Pirsig paints, even if he can't promise to be an
> alarm clock.
>
> JOHN B SAYS...
> I'm searching for a solution to how I can enjoy my metaphysical side,
> without
> sacrificing so much time and energy that could be spent meeting my
> needs for community
> and dialogue. I had hoped the intellectual dialogue that occupies us
> on this site might also
> provide that deeper dialogue, but the reality has been disappointing.
> Perhaps the internet is
> a thin medium. Perhaps I was just naive to assume that a shared
> enthusiusm for Pirsig's
> thinking, and a desire to explore it further, would lead to some depth
> in relationships. Quite
> possibly I have unrealistic expectations.
>
> DMB adds... Yea, the medium certainly has its limits. But you're
> expectation are only high, not unrealistic.
>
> JOHN B RESIGNS?
> I am inclined to leave my emails unread, switch off now and try some
> options.
>
> DMB says.. God, I hope this one doesn't go unread. I broke a sweat
> writing it. And an answer would be nice.
>
> Thanks for your time.
>
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:16 BST