Re: MD Systematic about the Sophists

From: Matt the Enraged Endorphin (mpkundert@students.wisc.edu)
Date: Thu Dec 26 2002 - 03:43:53 GMT

  • Next message: Mari: "Re: MD Systematic about the Sophists"

    Mari,

    Mari said:
    Baby steps is what i'm talking about. Work on what is with-in
    reach; the realm of manifestable reality. If the brainpower that is here
    combined forces working towards some end goal agendum using MoQ tenets to
    stay the course until complete and actualized; a Quality of change could
    likely result. That would be "practical use" in my book.
    "World hunger" "World peace" "President of the US" are a little lofty at
    this time and i think there in lies part of the problem: thinking too big!
    Creating a collective VOICE that is well rooted in it's philosophy is what's
    needed to start to effect change. My guess is that money will follow if it's
    presented right. WELL MARKETED. But in the mean time.....

    Matt:
    What I'm driving at when I say that Pirsig is a good inspiration and the
    MoQ is a bad public instructor, is the theme I talked about in the
    "Unofficial Rorty Dictionary" thread (the applicable parts starting Sept.
    28 and stemming into Oct.) where I discussed some of the practical
    applications of holding the private and public spheres seperate. There I
    discussed Rorty's idea of "religion as a coversation-stopper." Pace Scott
    (and others), I think we need to leave much of religion and philosophy and
    other paths towards self-perfection out of the public discourse. When I
    say that the MoQ is a bad public instructor, I'm saying that philosophy is
    a bad master over politics. Philosophy, however, can be a good servant.

    So, when you move from my statements to a suggestion for "baby steps," I
    agree that any project of public influence that this site may want to exert
    should take baby steps. I have no problem with using the MoQ or Pirsig to
    gain insights into the problems of society. What I have a problem with is
    saying that the problems of society are that they don't speak MoQese. When
    I say that the MoQ "isn't going to help us if we ever become President of
    the United States," I'm saying that if we ever become President, we
    shouldn't expect to make reference to the MoQ when suggesting policy, just
    as I don't think our politicians should make reference to God when
    suggesting policy.

    In essence, I think our arguing, debating, and pontificating at this
    discussion site is exactly what this discussion site was designed for. I
    don't think it was designed for _enacting_ world change. It was designed
    for enacting personal change. Any public change one wishes to do, I think
    they should already be doing it, rather then waiting for their cues from
    the MoQ Discussion Group.

    This isn't to say that if people want to use this discussion group as a
    public rallying point to gather support for world changes they shouldn't.
    This is a medium of communication and I don't wish to limit its
    capabilities by saying what can't or shouldn't be on or expressed here. My
    main point was that those who come to this discussion group shouldn't
    _expect_ to find a major social movement and then condemn it for not having
    one. The people who want and expect a major social movement, rather then
    carping at those who are of a different opinion, should start that social
    movement. It is incumbent upon them, not those who view the MoQ or Pirsig
    as inspiration in their own path towards self-perfection. It is the
    difference between Party Members and Fellow Travelers.

    At the bottom of all this is the suggestion that people don't need to have
    read Pirsig to make Quailty decisions. I think all people make Quality
    decisions at some point, some maybe more then others. What Pirsig helps us
    do is clarify in our own minds what might help us make Quality decisions in
    the future. But to think that Pirsig might help this clarification in all
    people, helping all people make, what we call, Quality decisions, I think
    is a basic mistake that liberal democracies, with their emphasis on the
    private pursuit of happiness, won't, nor should, put up with. I think we
    should express to the world our own obsession with Pirsig, express to them
    how Pirsig has helped us, but I think that that is all we, or anybody,
    should do. I don't think we should demand that everyone become obsessed
    with Pirsig. I don't think its required of us to help make the world a
    better place.

    Matt

    p.s. On your suggestion about a play, I would only warn you about
    attempting to group-write anything, let alone dialogue. As you may have
    noticed, there are a disparate number of voices on this site and I don't
    think they'll be unifying anytime soon (nor do I think they should) ;-)

    If you are serious about it, choose who you collaborate with wisely.

    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 : Thu Dec 26 2002 - 03:39:33 GMT