From: Phaedrus Wolff (PhaedrusWolff@carolina.rr.com)
Date: Fri Dec 31 2004 - 01:42:45 GMT
Ham) -- Yes, that's the substitution I made -- except for your improvised
conclusion
Doesn't it suggest the Pirsigian style of dialectic? Doesn't it, in fact,
express the same concept?
Chin) -- Actually without adding the concept of Being, Creator, Source, and
Nothingness, it doesn't fit the MOQ, as the MOQ is atheistic and
anti-theistic. The word God is denied as being interchangeable with Quality,
as Pirsig sees Chritianity as exclusive in its modern view. The only way
Christianity would be able to fit in with the MOQ would be if it did not
deny these other religions; maybe that is a bit too much to hope for.
Ham) -- Now, you've gone to the trouble of providing a scenario for Buddha's
enlightment. Your purpose, I take it, is to demonstrate that all spiritual
contemplation, whether religious or philosophical, is essentially the same.
That's too generalistic for me, Chin. I think one can carry eclecticism
only so far; beyond that point one's position loses structure as well as
meaning. There is sufficient mystery in philosophy without deliberately
trying to 'universalize' it.
Chin) -- As stated before, Christianity is not part of a more universal
spiritual enlightenment, such as Buddhism, Hindu, Confucianism, and Native
American spirituality. Confucianism comes closest to the MOQ, and the
Nothingness of Buddhism comes closest to Quality. I would however claim
that there is no difference between spiritual mysticism and philosophical
mysticism as long as there are no limitations place on mysticism to fit into
some sort of word traps that have nothing to do with mysticism at all.
Ham) -- I understand that we are all seeking a higher truth, and that
language is
inadequate for this objective. I also understand the limitations of man's
rational perspective in attempting to comprehend a non-rational universe.
But language, reason and (perhaps) intuition are all we have to work with.
As philosophers, I think we have an obligation to use these tools as best we
can to reach a conclusion we can live with. Disagreement and error are a
natural part of the dialectical process --remember Hegel's
"thesis-antithesis-synthesis"?
Chin) -- I personally feel the language in his two books, ZMM and "Lila" is
sufficient to explain the MOQ well; much better than the language I have
read from other philosophers. The MOQ turns what is looked at as a
"non-rational universe" into a rational universe.
Ham) -- You yourself quoted Pirsig on the importance of defining one's
philosophy:
> "The second phase emerged as a result of normal intellectual criticism of
his
> lack of definition of what he was talking about. In this phase he made
> systematic, rigid statements about what Quality is, and worked out an
> enormous hierarchic structure of thought to support them. He literally had
> to move heaven and earth to arrive at this systematic understanding and
when
> he was done felt he'd achieved an explanation of existence and our
> consciousness of it better than any that had existed before."
Ham continues;
But while the philosopher may satisfy himself that he has achieved a "better
explanation of existence", it may still not be
complete enough to pass along to others. There may be major omissions or
logical errors in the theory, some of which he may not have thought of. Or,
he may not have articulated his theory in a manner that is totally
comprehensible to others. Finally, he must compete on the same ground with
other philosophers and their ideas to test the originality and significance
of his work He may not be capable of accomplishing all this in his
lifetime. Yet, his philosophy must be complete, and the issues he posits
resolved, before the author can justifiably be credited for making a
contribution to philosophy.
Chin) -- He didn't offer the 'Ready-made' philosophy. He leaves open our
need to 'Think.' No philosophy can be considered complete, and no philosophy
can be considered universal as each individual would read a philosophy
differently -- as you suggest, he may have made 'Logical' errors in the view
of some; mostly Western philosophers. If you concern yourself with verifying
your philosophy to agreement with others, then there is no way you could
complete your philosopy, as there will always be other views. The most
dynamic philosphical offerings may not be recognized as such in the
philosopher's lifetime; that is unless it is no more than imitative poetry
trying to pass itself off as philosophy; or possibly, maybe even
understandable enough, and without holes to the point that everyone, not
only the academically gifted few, can understand it. To me, Pirsig's
philosophy makes sense in a more 'intuitive' manner than philosophogology.
The philosophology may be great for philospher-to-philsopher speak, but if
it is going to make a difference in the world, should it not be
understandable to all?
Ham) -- At least, this is what I think the MoQ forum serves to do, and it
should
define our purpose for being here.
Chin) -- I would agree.
This;
<Snip>And as long as thought knows
its limits by acknowledging its dependence, then [Quality] is ensured as the
hidden ontology that secures the place of God</Snip>
does not even remotely resemble Pirsig's dialect. I find nothing at all in
the MOQ that suggests limitations of thought pointing toward a dependence on
ontology. The MOQ is a more scientific road map; a better road map than the
SOM that holds no value, and denies Quantum Mechanics Theory. The whole
point of the MOQ in my view is that it denies a dependence on the dualality
thinking of Western thought in depending on Subject/Object. Religion is no
more than a part of the social patterns. In the MOQ, the intellect is a
higher evolution than the social patterns, and DQ/SQ is a higher form of
morality than social/biological morality, and intellectual/social morality.
Quality does not secure the place of God, Quality replaces God, so no
philosophy that is defined by ontology would resemble Pirsig's Philsophy.
Would you not think?
I was going to take it one small part at a time, but feel that might be a
little slow, so I cut to the chase.
Here's wishing you a Happy New Year as well. Glad to have you back.
Chin
----- Original Message -----
From: <hampday@earthlink.net>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2004 6:19 PM
Subject: Re: MD Is the MoQ still in the Kantosphere?
> Hi again, Chin:
>
> > (I did the [Quality] replacement for the words "religion", "religious"
> and
> > "theology", and added a little at the end to 'God'.)
> >
> > "But what if [Quality] precedes rationality? What if it is[Quality] that
> > makes thought possible? Then, [Quality] would know no limits; its
thought
> of
> > transcendence would be its own transgression. What if the [Quality]
realm
> > belonged to the immediate self-conscious, if it were the universal
feeling
> > of absolute dependence? Then, [Quality] would be a thinking that both
> agrees
> > and disagrees with Kant. Yes, [Quality] cannot be thought because it
comes
> > before thought and cannot be bound by the limits thought necessarily
> imposes
> > on itself in order to think and to know. But at the same time,[Quality]
> > cannot not be thought, because every thought is incomplete without that
> > which gives thought to think. As Schleiermacher tells us, thinking is
also
> a
> > feeling, and feeling is also an action. So the thought that thinks and
> feels
> > and acts is the thought rightly named [Quality] . And as long as thought
> > knows
> > its limits by acknowledging its dependence, then [Quality] is ensured as
> the
> > hidden ontology that secures the place of God [Essence, Source, Creator,
> > One,
> > Allah, Nothingness, Being -- Quality]"
>
> Yes, that's the substitution I made -- except for your improvised
conclusion
> Doesn't it suggest the Pirsigian style of dialectic? Doesn't it, in
fact,
> express the same concept?
>
> Now, you've gone to the trouble of providing a scenario for Buddha's
> enlightment. Your purpose, I take it, is to demonstrate that all
spiritual
> contemplation, whether religious or philosophical, is essentially the
same.
> That's too generalistic for me, Chin. I think one can carry eclecticism
> only so far; beyond that point one's position loses structure as well as
> meaning. There is sufficient mystery in philosophy without deliberately
> trying to 'universalize' it.
>
> I understand that we are all seeking a higher truth, and that language is
> inadequate for this objective. I also understand the limitations of man's
> rational perspective in attempting to comprehend a non-rational universe.
> But language, reason and (perhaps) intuition are all we have to work with.
> As philosophers, I think we have an obligation to use these tools as best
we
> can to reach a conclusion we can live with. Disagreement and error are a
> natural part of the dialectical process --remember Hegel's
> "thesis-antithesis-synthesis"?
>
> You yourself quoted Pirsig on the importance of defining one's philosophy:
>
> > "The second phase emerged as a result of normal intellectual criticism
of
> his
> > lack of definition of what he was talking about. In this phase he made
> > systematic, rigid statements about what Quality is, and worked out an
> > enormous hierarchic structure of thought to support them. He literally
had
> > to move heaven and earth to arrive at this systematic understanding and
> when
> > he was done felt he'd achieved an explanation of existence and our
> > consciousness of it better than any that had existed before."
>
> But while the philosopher may satisfy himself that he has achieved a
"better
> explanation of existence", it may still not be
> complete enough to pass along to others. There may be major omissions or
> logical errors in the theory, some of which he may not have thought of.
Or,
> he may not have articulated his theory in a manner that is totally
> comprehensible to others. Finally, he must compete on the same ground
with
> other philosophers and their ideas to test the originality and
significance
> of his work He may not be capable of accomplishing all this in his
> lifetime. Yet, his philosophy must be complete, and the issues he posits
> resolved, before the author can justifiably be credited for making a
> contribution to philosophy.
>
> At least, this is what I think the MoQ forum serves to do, and it should
> define our purpose for being here.
>
> Thanks for the consideration, Chin.
>
> And, Happy New Year!
> Ham
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
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 Dec 31 2004 - 02:22:56 GMT