From: Allen Barrows (allen_barrows@yahoo.co.uk)
Date: Thu Jun 16 2005 - 20:40:29 BST
Hi Allen,
You asked an excellent question: "Why exactly is SOM anti-harmonious?"
It creates a fundamental barrier between us and the world. With the decline of popular religion (not necessarily a bad thing in itself, but...) the pervasive SOM has made moral realist theories somewhat far-fetched to the man in the street, which has led to our modern culture where something like emotivism is now "common sense".
Thanks to most people giving primacy to the "O" of SOM because science tells us that substance is "more real", we have our consumerist culture. Spiritually deprived, un-confident people for whom there is no real moral objective other than money and the accumulation of material things. Moreover, due to the fundamental barrier in SOM, with "me in here" separated from "external reality", many people feel no responsibility or connection to the world at large. Therefore society as a whole seeks the holy grail of "economic growth" and can happily do so at the expense of just about anything, including the environment that made it all possible in the first place. And this is why I see something very urgent in the MOQ.
Hi Mike, Good answer. I agree.
I'm somewhat perplexed regarding your claim that Bo's theory lacks an account of harmony. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't SOL accept _every word_ of ZMM, including those about having a harmonious, non-dualistic attitude to work?
Allen - I do not know. You assume he does, and i assume he does, but Bo never says so.
And including those about science, art and technology having a united purpose?
Allen - I do not know.
Really, SOL is quite a small adjustment of the MOQ that merely disagrees wth Pirsig's definition of intellect.
Allen - SOL small adjustment has interesting consequences for non-dualistic work. Here is what i think. Bo says that intellect is a 'special outlook' that differentiates between Subjects and Objects. But you have just said that a harmonious attitude to work is non-dualistic. I agree with you.
ZMM talks about uniting the Subjective and the Objective by introducing Quality.
The Objective is science and the Subjective is feeling.
But SOL says the Subject and the Object are a 'special outlook' of the intellect.
If science is an intellectual enquiery, then it is not Objective, because that is what is being united with the Subjective.
But SOL says the intellect is a 'special outlook'.
How can SOL harmonise something that SOL creates?
Bo is telling us that SOL produces the disharmony.
But even that does not fit with ZMM, and you assume that Bos SOL accepts 'every word' of ZMM?
I do not think so. Something is a bit off.
I don't see the tremendous evil in SOL that you seem to see, although equally I don't see the tremendous necessity Bo sees in implementing the SOL.
Allen - I have a very clear conceptualisation of Evil Mike. I do not think Bo or SOL is evil.
I do not think unclear reasoning is Evil.
That's why - again - I implore you to drop the witch-hunting attitude.
Allen - May i make a statement which will hopefully put an end to this accusation of witch-hunting?
I suggest that everyone read all of Bos work, and not to be lazy and just dip into it, but read every word of it. I recommend Bos work to all MOQ thinkers.
How is that Mike?
Finally, can you please re-read the following and tell me what its purpose was? Because I find it pedantic and humorously self-defeating:
MH: Allen, while I agree whole-heartedly with your emphasis on harmony, I get the impression that you are trying to protect me from Bo's "heretical" suggestions.
Allen: Hello Mike, I do not emphasise harmony - ZMM and the MOQ do. That is a fact. If it is heretical to tell you that Zen is about harmony, and you are not allowed to say other wise, then i am a big heretic and i make no apologies for it:
Zen is about harmony and you are not allowed to say other wise.
Allen continues: I think you mean to say, 'I agree whole-heartedly with ZMM and Lilas emphasis on harmony.'
Good, so do i.
Regards,
Mike
Allen - All i am saying is that I emphasise harmony because ZMM and Lila do. When you say that you agree with me about harmony, i wish to avoid the credit and say to you, 'But Mike, don't give me the credit, please give ZMM and Lila the credit for arguing for harmony, because that is where i got my enthusiasm for harmony from.'
See?
So then i said, you and i agree with ZMM and Lila.
I wanted to get this clear, because although we agree with ZMM and Lila about harmony, and although we both assume Bo does too, a closer inspection may reveal that Bos position cocks things up.
Nothing i say is written in stone, not me or anyone.
I just apply a bit of thinking and ask if you can help.
All the best,
Allen.
---------------------------------
How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos. Get Yahoo! Photos
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 : Thu Jun 16 2005 - 21:54:43 BST