From: Dan Glover (daneglover@hotmail.com)
Date: Fri Aug 13 2004 - 21:25:52 BST
Hello everyone
>From: <hampday@earthlink.net>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
>Subject: Re: MD Proposal to discuss a Metaphysics of Value/Horsepucky???
>Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 21:44:46 -0400
>
>Ham in response to Arlo Bensinger's message of Thursday, August 12
>Re: MD Proposal to discuss a Metaphysics of Value/Horsepucky???
>
>
> > First, based on a review of the dialogue, I offer my support for Dan and
> > Mark's valid criticisms. While it is certainly much easier to deal with
> > unchallenging responses, dealing with those who find not just
>disagreement
> > with particular conclusions but with one's "thesis" as a whole is more
> > telling of where one is positioned between proselytizer and philosopher.
> > Hopefully this will not degenerate into another "every time I am
>challenged
> > I will call it an 'ad-hominem' attack and cry foul". Ham, to use your
>own
> > quote, Mark and Dan are not doing this for a paycheck and is free to
>thus
> > "call it as they see it".
>
>Greetings, Arlo, and thanks for the caviat. Do you really feel that Dan
>and
>Mark
>"disagree with my thesis as a whole"?
Hi Ham and Arlo
I cannot speak for Mark of course but I'll try and give you my take. I find
Ham's thesis to be very well constructed and the writing to be excellent.
What bothers me about the it however is the content. I cannot help but
wonder why someone with the talent shown is wasting time dealing with what I
see as social level political issues of the day and calling it philosophy.
In a hundred years, who's going to care? That same notion bothers me to a
degree with Noam Chomsky's work so you're in good company anyway. Yes -- and
Mark mentioned this too but please don't get the impression I'm trying to
gang up on you -- the flag waving (and I mean that figuratively as well as
literally) is particularly irking. So do I disagree with the thesis as a
whole? Yes and no.
> I would like to think that their
>jibes and
>challenges are a defensive tactic which would indicate some interest in
>what
>I
>have to say. On the other hand, I think that we may all be too quick to
>"agree"
>or "disagree" with a particular concept, as opposed to giving it some
>pre-reactive
>consideration. At least, this is what I'm trying to do in the case of
>Pirsig's MOQ
>whose logic and conventions are still somewhat strange to me.
I believe that we all have something to learn from others. That's why I read
the posts here even though I don't contribute all that often anymore. At the
same time when something rubs me the wrong way it's hard for me to stay
silent. I suppose the Buddhists would say that's my ego rearing its ugly
head. It's something I have to meditate on.
>
>Arlo, I have just read an excellent book on the history of fundamentalism
>by
>Karen Armstrong, whom many consider an expert on this topic. The title of
>her
>NY Times bestseller is "The Battle for God", and I commend it to you.
Thank you for the recommendation.
>There
>is
>no question but that religious fundamentalism -- including the
>Christian-motivated
>Crusades of the Middle Ages -- has played a major role in bringing
>civilization to its present predicament. One problem here is that because
>we
>now regard "fundamentalism" as pejorative, its root word meaning has lost
>significance. We all aim for a fundamental belief system, whether religious
>or
>philosophical. (Pirsig might have included this goal under Dynamic
>Quality.)
I think the MOQ would say that any fundamentalism, like religion, is a
social pattern of value. Perhaps your reasoning here is why in your thesis
you call RMP's books "cult books." I think that is a mistake. Like science,
the MOQ recognizes its own limitations. Fundamentalism does not.
>I'm not an advocate for any religion; but I fear that we may have thrown
>the
>babe out with the bathwater in refusing to accept concepts that may have a
>"spiritual" or "esthetic" aspect..
I don't think the MOQ refuses to accept spiritual or esthetic aspects of
reality...from what I understand it's the socially dogmatic concept of
religion and God that the MOQ speaks out against.
>
>I'm only recently acquainted with Pirsig's ontology, but I can't imagine
>Freedom
>as anything but a divine gift to man.
Freedom from what?
>Latching this concept to "static"
>Quality
>would seem to be a rejection of teleology. (I definitely recall Pirsig
>mentioning
>teleology as an ongoing process of the DQ type.)
If you don't mind please provide a quote to chew on when you have the time
and inclination, of course.
Thank you for your comments,
Dan
PS Thank you, Ham, for sharing your Robert Pirsig letter with the discussion
group. I very much enjoyed reading it.
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 : Fri Aug 13 2004 - 21:27:59 BST