From: Harry L. Stille (hlacour@hal-pc.org)
Date: Mon Dec 09 2002 - 03:23:38 GMT
Rudy O: I appreciate your 2 cents, and your questions. I have no answer,
but perhaps someone else will enlighten us.
Thanks for reading Persig so carefully, and asking some basic quetions.
Thank You, Harry
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
[mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]On Behalf Of Rudy
Sent: Sunday, December 08, 2002 4:26 PM
To: moq_discuss@moq.org
Subject: MD MOQ FOR DUMMIES, Please
Sorry folks, but I'm not a philosophy major, so I
can't quite keep up with the level of discussion here.
But if you would, please humor my comments and
questions just this once. A few months ago I dug out
my ZMM after 20 years and gave it a careful second
read. Then I bought Lila and I'm finishing it at
present. I believe that I see the rough outlines of
what Pirsig was trying to say, but I'm still
befuddled. So, I'll ask you to put up with my
unsophisticated comments and questions about the MOQ.
Thanks in advance for your patience.
I gather that Pirsig, in his books, was trying to
present a roadmap of reality, a grand unified paradigm
for thinking about anything and everything. Most
people I know don't think about how we think about
things on a day-to-day basis (but then again, I am
from New Jersey). Still, I can accept the notion that
just because we don't think about how we think doesn't
mean that there isn't a big set of underlying
presumptions behind our thinking. We might be like
deepwater fish, who never know what water is until
they get hooked by a fisherman and pulled up out of
it. Pirsig says that the underlying paradigm for our
thinking is based on a subject-object dichotomy. He
implies, I believe, that this paradigm isn't keeping
up with the times. Based on what we now know about
physics and psychology, he appears to propose a
paradigm based on three major points: the virtue of
quality, the dichotomy between statics and dynamics,
and the process of evolution.
I suppose that my biggest question is, where does all
this bottom out? Just how would you implement all of
this? How would you propose to teach the world to
think in MOQ terms and abandon SOM? Wouldn't you have
to change the nature of education from kindegarten to
grad school? Wouldn't every textbook need to be
translated and reprinted? Wouldn't our day-to-day
language have to change? Wouldn't our governments and
courts need to translate all of their laws and
regulations and proclamations and decisions into MOQ
language? Wouldn't every intellectual and analytical
field, from psychology to biology to physics to
history to law to theology to political science to
medicine to engineering to architecture etc. have to
change its modulus operandi? Wouldn't newspaper
reporters have to learn MOQ-speak? Aren't we talking
about something enormous here, something
revolutionary, something that would cause tremendous
disruptions while people get used to the new regime?
How would it all be done? Over how many years? Where
would it start? Who would guide it? What would be the
sanctions for non-cooperation? How would you justify
the costs and disruptions to the 99% of us who aren't
saavy about metaphysics?
As a topic for abstract discussion, I myself find the
MOQ to be quite interesting and well intended. I
probably agree with most, if not all, of the
conclusions that Pirsig reaches in the various
examples he gives in Lila of the application of MOQ to
social questions. I appreciate the fact that the MOQ
doesn't mean the end of belief in God or the end of
democracy, that it is rather liberal in allowing room
for a variety of political and spiritual beliefs. It
leaves some room for the western notion of personal
freedom and the rights of the individual. It doesn't
mean that the US Constitution and Bill of Rights needs
to be junked (although they arguably would have to be
translated).
But, if you actually intended to implement MOQ into
the daily workings of society as to replace and banish
SOM, my first question would be, what are the
benefits? Would people generally become more
enlightned? Would they change their behavior to
become more cooperative and more concerned about
long-term social consequences? I'll be the first to
admit that our society has a big problem in this
regard. Our over-emphasis on individuality will not
be a good thing as world population marches toward the
10 billion mark and the planet's carrying capacity is
pushed into the red zone. But I'm just not convinced
that the MOQ is the answer to all of this. However, I
am putting the question forth here in this forum
because I am open-minded on the subject.
Again, I'm not an expert on philosophical paradigms
for thinking about reality. To be honest, I can't
even name another metaphysical paradigm other than the
MOQ and the basic set of western values (which do
indeed appear to revolve around a SOM). Talk to me
about logical positivism and I'm lost. But, for what
it's worth, here is my reaction to the MOQ in a
nutshell. As to "quality", I think that Pirsig's
reflections on it (mostly in ZMM) are way too fuzzy to
be extended into a general paradigm of thinking. In
ZMM, Pirsig makes some delightful observations while
pondering the meaning and nature of "quality", based
on his experiences as a teacher. And, recalling his
graduate studies, he effectively attacks the ancient
Greek origins of our current western value paradigms.
He hits some nails right on the head. But not enough.
I walk away from ZMM unconvinced that anything
earthshaking was presented, at least regarding the
notion of "quality" as an effective and workable
replacement for the ancient Greco/Judeo/Christian
heritage of thought and values. Pirsig seems to be
reaching for some ultimate value that the wisest
people (perhaps Lao Tzu is an example) realize has no
name, cannot be captured with any one word or even ten
thousand words.
In Lila, Pirsig seems to realize the need to "latch"
his notions of quality to a usable framework, if it is
going to be remembered as anything more than the basis
for a "one-hit" book (sort of like the lyrics to
"Working for the Weekend" by Lover Boy, a classic
one-hit-wonder group). So Pirsig calls upon two
powerful concepts from the world of math and science:
statics versus dynamics, and evolution. IMHO, Pirsig
gets the most traction from statics/dynamics. He
really makes some powerful and impressive observations
about reality in applying this dichotomy. If Pirsig
is going to be remembered for anything, I think
static-dynamic social analysis is it. This is the
diamond in the rough. This is where he should have
quit while he was ahead, if I could put in my 0.02.
This is where I think any "Pirsig movement", such as
this group, should be headed. (Again, just my 2 moldy
U.S. pennies).
As to evolution, this is where Pirsig gives me the
creeps. In making social judgements, Pirsig talks
about what is "higher" in evolution. That is where
the subjectivity sneaks in, where the scientists and
philosophers would get tossed out by the politicians
and charlatans. How do we objectively determine what
is "higher" in evolutionary terms? Is something
developed later in time always better? Or is
complexity the thing? Are the more complex things
necessarily better? I agree that biological evolution
generally tends over long time frames toward forms of
life that are more adaptable, more conscious, more
senitent, more intelligent, etc. Also, these life
forms are usually more complex than forms evolved
earlier in time. But when you take a million year
paradigm and try to make social decisions based on
trends evolving over hundreds or tens or single digit
years, it may not work as reliably. On that time
scale, even biological evolution has many dead ends,
i.e. many species that evolve later and with more
complexity that just don't work out in the ten or
hundred thousand year time frame.
I'm done. I'd be interested in any comments on what
I've said here. Again, I'm not on your level or
Pirsig's level in terms of "thinking about thinking",
and I don't have an IQ even approaching Pirsig's level
(I'm definately not Mensa material). If you want to
flame me with high-level philosophical constructs or
Ken Wilbur ramblings, go ahead, all I've got is a
half-empty water pistol. But I can read, so if there
are any constructive reflections on my questions, I
will definitely benefit from them. Thanks.
Rudy O., from the Rigel school of reality (as Rigel
might have said, you never know who your friends are)
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
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
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 : Mon Dec 09 2002 - 01:10:43 GMT