From: PhaedrusWolf@aol.com
Date: Sat Dec 04 2004 - 18:12:08 GMT
Ham) -- If creation "comes from" Quality, it must be the Creator or primary
source.
MoQers seem to have difficulty answering this question. I'm very aware of
their aversion to theism and religious connotations which are unpopular
associations for any cult movement today.
Chin) -- I guess the term 'Cult movement' could apply here. MoQers do not
have a leader, but do adhere to a common idea, that of Quality, which is not
defined as any single religious belief in the term 'Creator'. It does not deny
God, but avoids use of the term God as it confuses the issue by relating it to
the Victorian principle religion that has developed from Christianity as the
theists have concentrated on 'The Word' and not allowing progress in the
understanding of the Bible it was based on. The MOQ is both anti-theist and
anti-intellectual as either lend themselves to a One-and-only truth. It allows
religious beliefs as static patterns, called static Quality of culture while
allowing these static patterns to be part of the intellect. A religious belief
that places God before man's interpretation of 'The Word' of the Bible. The
MOQ is Cultish in that it is being used to combine Western and Eastern
theology, culture, and politics. It does not deny Western thought, except is does
deny that Western thought has the ability to define 'The Truth' or 'The Good'
and is exclusive in this ability.
What you see as a difficulty in answering the question of "Creator or
primary source" may be no more than an acceptance of the possibility, even as you
wrote in your thesis, that you cannot have the answers to all things. Any
exclusive answer as to the creation of the universe, or the Essence of the
unmeasurable Quality of your 'Nothingness' can only be speculative, and adds
nothing to the Quality of life in the present or future.
Ham) -- Use of the word "faith" for a metaphysical hypothesis is a little
strange,
isn't it? MoQ followers don't usually refer to their Quality belief system
as a faith. Do you suppose this is because Pirsig insists that MoQ is an
empirically-based philosophy, or is it because I have recognized and stated
the "supernatural" aspects of Essentialism?
Chin) -- Use of the word 'Faith' in the context of what I offered would not
be "strange" of the inclusion of social and intellect. Faith would only be
viewed strange if the intellect denied any relevance to Quality in the social,
of which the MOQ does not allow this to happen, which upsets many who believe
the intellect to be at the utmost highest level, and therefore religious or
cultural beliefs to be of no significance. The word 'Essentialism' is no more
than a word trap that brings misunderstanding to the philosophy, as you would
have to accept one individual's definition of essentialism over all others.
If you have read the writings of Pirsig, you would not even offer the idea
that the MOQ based philosophy is "empirically-based." The MOQ as defined by
Pirsig is only the 1%, or the road map to philosophical progress.
Ham) -- I can't speak for Pirsig. My cosmology derives from Eckhart's
intuitive
concept that "man is a nothingness" and that "God creates being from
nothingness." I posit man as a "negate" -- an entity whose essence-value is
an "otherness" to him. To become cognizant of Being, the subject (self)
re-negates this otherness incrementally (in experience), deriving its value
as the positive result of two negatives. Since individual selfness has no
place in absolute Essence, Value is man's link to Essence. To realize that
Value, he must, as you say, "suspend" his selfness (ego), which is
consistent with Buddhistic mysticism.
Chin) -- I must reread Eckhart's works, as I saw they lent a peace to my own
philosophy. I think this may have been due to the fact that Eckhart was, and
still is not accepted in the Christian church, so it may have been more a
feeling of a spiritual union. You may not have read why I term as a 'Null
Hypothesis' to my philosophical search. This just simply means that I do not
accept any individual's thought over that of another's, but that I take from each
what implants itself in my memory. Better descried in MOQ terms, the Static
Quality in my mind is replaced by Dynamic Quality, which is either learned
through intellectual thought over what was born in my mind, or serves as a
catalyst to reveal what is already there, or is thrust upon me by spiritual (or
mystic) revelation.
I'm not sure if you realize this Value you speak of is the same as the
Quality Pirsig speaks of. The difference may be in that you place confidence in
'Math' as the immortal principle of the universe. Don't get me wrong, I would
love to go back to the study of math as I find it quite intriguing that it may
very well be an immortal principle, but its limitations come from the inputs
that we are sure enough of to use as a base, and throughout. As in physics, I
saw the same limitations in finance. I feel the MBA graduates are sent out
into the world with a false sense of security that what they learned in the
'Bricks and Mortar Universities' prepared them for the tasks they were to take
on. The Value used in financial equations is limited to Known inputs, just as
it may be with physics.
(George) Bernard Shaw offered the idea; "Common sense is intuitive; enough
of it is genius." 'Intuitive' is the key word here, and Pirsig stated he avoids
the use of the term Common Sense as he feels Western thought confuses this
with what Einstein termed the common sense that was learned by the time you
were 18. Intuitive common sense may be the link making up the difference
between a Value MBA graduate and a disillusioned MBA graduate. The difference
might
be stated as a 'Thinking' MBA graduate.
Ham) -- Chin, if I may ask a personal question: are you a Buddhist yourself?
If
you're knowledgeable on Buddhism, you can be a big help to me. I've read
little of it to date, yet, when you get beyond the symbolism, it can be a
vital source of inspired thought.
Chin) -- I am Christian, but find my spirituality from inside (similar to
Eckhart), just as I find my intellectuality from inside, as opposed to finding
it in the church or university exclusively. I find a better relation to
Hinduism as it combines religion and state as a way of life, but have not had the
opportunity to study it well. The concept is intriguing, as I feel this may be
the key to what went wrong with both the social and intellectual morality
that I must agree has not shown evidence of evolving the in the US (I obviously
couldn't make a determination for the UK without spending time there)
Ham) -- That's an undeserved compliment. But thank you, anyway. I no longer
consider myself a Christian, as I am not a theist and don't subscribe to the
tenets of a personal deity. I do believe spiritualism is needed in a
personal philosophy, however, and would like to think Essentialism may
someday return it to Western culture.
. . . Your objective is commendable. I'd go a step further by replacing
religion
with a Philosophy of Essence, keeping the spirituality as a metaphysical
belief system but dropping the dogma.
. . . Thanks, again. You're most kind. But it was actually Pirsig who laid
this
out in his SODV paper. Since I had developed a valuistic thesis along the
same lines, I merely took his basic concept and ran with it.
Chin) -- You went your own way. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this.
Ham) -- Chin, I don't have the professional credentials to submit my thesis
to
academia. My degrees are in Biology/Chemistry and Music Theory. Philosophy
has always been a hobby. So I'm torn between striving for "academic
excellence" and simplifying the Essence concept for a general audience --
"5th graders"? Obviously, I've gotten nowhere with the on-line thesis as
it now stands. But your suggestions are well taken.
. . . I hope you're wrong in that conclusion (" that you
only use what agrees with your hypothesis") I tried to establish an
intellectual dialogue with RMP, but only received a terse reply suggesting
that I might generate some interest in this Discussion Group. But, please
feel free to show me where I may have misinterpreted other philosophers I've
quoted. I don't want to misquote or deceive anyone just to get my ideas
across.
Chin) -- I must offer the disclaimer here that I should always offer -- "In
my view." Also any bias I see in your use of philosophical statemens would be
unintentional.
First, there is nothing wrong with 'Creative Excellence.' It is a form of
high Quality, or Dynamic Quality. My view is that I cannot take a snippet from a
philospher to prove a point, as this snippet may conveniently support my
hypothesis. I saw this so much in finance, the "What Works on Wall Street"
books, that I may have a formed opinion that this is true in any hypothesis. My
view of snippets you offer from other philosophers such as Socrates, Plato,
James, and Pirsig are taken out of context, but my view in itself may very well
be the one that is biased to some preconceived notion I had before reading
them. This may hold true with others as well, and create a skeptical view of
what you are offering.
On 5th grade terminology, I am writing a book of my own on "What Works on
Wall Street," but offering the idea that I, nor any other author 'Knows' what
works on Wall Street. Warren Buffett is not an author of books, and does not
offer the idea that he can formulate a ready-made guideline to what works, but
offers his thought through his letters to shareholders for what has worked
for him; I might offer what has worked quite well for over half a century in
that he has managed to double the returns of the market in his current
Berkshire Hathaway, and his previous partnerships. Every thing he offers is written
on 5th grade terms, and is not (or at least was not) accepted in academia. If
he did write a book on "Buying a Business as Opposed to Buying a Stock" it
would most likely skyrocket to the best seller's list.
As I am finding, not using academic terms that would confuse the general
public is much more difficult than using terms that are well known and accepted
in academia. Writing this book on 5th grade level (which in itself is quite
high intellectually to a 50 something like myself) has had me rewrite it
numeroous times, even to the point of starting all over.
I feel strongly that doing so will improve the world in that it will allow
the otherwise gullible individuals to do as offered in a book written by Bill
Schultheis, "The Coffeehouse Investor; How to Build Wealth, Ignore Wall
Street, and Get on With Your Life." _http://coffeehouseinvestor.com/_
(http://coffeehouseinvestor.com/)
This is important to me, in that anyone struggling to feed their family, or
living on beans and rice in their retirement are not capable of intellectual,
religious, or philosophical thought. Their whole existence is threatened by
poverty.
Whew!!! -- I am not proof reading this, and if you have read through this so
far, you really are a trooper. :o)
Any mistatements will just have to be corrected later, as I don't believe
you can live life to its fullest without experiencing it separate from
philosophical attainment of knowledge. "One picture (experience) is worth a thousand
words."
Chin
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 : Sun Dec 05 2004 - 10:39:01 GMT