From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Apr 17 2005 - 01:38:53 BST
Ham and all:
Ham asked:
You begin by saying that the MOQ structure "divides DQ from sq and
subdivides sq into the four levels." Please tell me how this explains the
epistemology?
dmb answers:
The levels of the MOQ are levels OF EXPERIENCE, kinds OF EXPERIENCE. The
whole structure is based on EXPERIENCE. Sorry for all the shouting, but it
seems you're having trouble hearing me. See, one of the major problems with
SOM, with Modern science is that only SENSORY EXPERIENCE counts as valid
empirical evidence. This has the effect of limiting our knowledge to
"things" to "objects" with simple location. It limits knowledge to the
"physical" realities. Pirsig points out that the senses are just one level
of experience, the biological level. And this is the sense in which you are
using the idea of empirically-based facts. But you seem to be completely
unaware that this is the problem to be solved. Its part of Pirsig's attack
on SOM. (If you have read LILA, which I highly doubt because you're
obviously no dummy, you should read it again - twice.)
Ham continued:
Who or what does this dividing? (The way you've stated it, the MOQ structure
is the prime mover, which tells us nothing.) But you needn't feel bad; Mr.
Pirsig doesn't shed any light on differentiation either. (He thinks
metaphysics is unnecessary.)
dmb says:
Prime mover? I don't even know what that's supposed to mean other than a
name for God the creator. The MOQ and its structure makes no such claims.
I'm simply saying that there are different kinds of experience and there is
nothing magical about it. As Joseph Campbell says, I don't need faith
because I have experience. Pirsig views faith as a low quality thing and his
MOQ is anti-thesitic for the same reasons. Who or what does the dividing?
Pirsig did, but he is only re-introducing what Modern science had collasped.
I mean, we can find epistemological pluralism all over the place. Its a
feature of the perennial philosophy. Wilber does the same thing;
reintergrates what Modernity had thrown out in its political struggle with
the church. (Again, I get the distinct impression that you have not read the
work under discussion here, which is very uncool.)
Ham continued:
I do seem to recall someone saying that Intellect was the divider, which
makes some sense if it refers to the individual's intellect, but this
suggestion fell apart when it was pointed out that, according to the MOQ,
Intellect is universal rather than individual.
dmb says:
I don't know how to resond to a vague characterizaton of a thing someone
else may have said. But, yes, metaphysics requires that we make distinctions
and work with definitions. So what's the problem? And if intellect was not
BOTH individual AND universally available how could we ever have a
philosophical discussion? So what's the problem?
Ham continued:
So it would appear that somebody's got some more 'splainin to do -- and it
isn't me. After all, according to you, I'm the "nice guy" who is "giving
metaphysics a bad name." Maybe Sam's work will unravel the mystery.
dmb says:
Huh? I really don't see what you're asking here. I'd be happy to do some
splainin, Ricky, but first you need to do some reading. I mean, you seem to
be asking for the fine points of character development without any clue as
to the basic plot.
Ham finally asked:
What on earth do you find "anti-modern", "anti-intellectual", and
"reactionary" about the fact that there is nothing empirical except the word
itself in Mr. Pirsig's theory, and that it wouldn't help if there were?
dmb says:
Huh? What I find to be anti-intellectual and reactionary are faith-based
assertions about Absolutes, Esssences and Gods for which there is no
evidence. That's what gives metaphysics a bad name. That's what I mean by
"quasi-religious nonsense". As Ant said, this is the sort of thing that gave
rise to positivism in the first place. And I'm not saying that we need to
see these Absolutes and Esssences. I'm saying there is no evidence of any
kind, from any level. Or rather, if there is no one here has ever
successfully presented it.
Later on,
dmb
And what is up with this idea that life has no meaning unless we can live
forever? I can see that you don't respond well to my cruel humor, but I have
to say that this strikes me as nothing but the worst kind of wishful
thinking. This is the kind of ego-centric thing that makes life a nightmare,
that keeps us desperately clinging to life out fear. Again, is there any
evidence of any kind WHATSOEVER that we live after death? Please put it on
the table.
Unfortunately, my little boy experienced death very early in life (his
grandfather had ALS) and it prompted too many difficult questions. When he
was only three he asked me why things die. I like to think that I gave him a
MOQish answer. I told him that if nothing ever died then everything would
always stay the same, but because everything dies there can be change and
things can get better. I told him that things have been dying and getting
better for a very long time so that now things are very, very good. He
seemed to like like that explantion quite a bit - and so do I.
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 Apr 17 2005 - 01:45:00 BST