From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Wed Jul 13 2005 - 19:08:21 BST
Hi Michael --
You ask:
> Are you equating "MoQ-people" with the "positivists" mentioned by
> Pirsig? Nothing could be further from the truth. That Pirsig quote, as
> I interpret it, places him on your side!
Pirsig's statement is open to anyone's interpretation, so I can't be certain
of its meaning. But taken along with other quotations relating to God and
the supernatural, my interpretation is by asserting that "positivists
usually deny 'essence' as
something like 'God' or 'the absolute'", Pirsig is admitting that he wants
the positivists (i.e., scientists) in his corner.
The fear that he (or I) might scare them off by reference to an absolute
source would seem to affirm this interpretation: "... which is to say they
think you are some kind of religious nut.". Certainly RMP doesn't want to
be regarded as a 'nut case', and if this is intended as advice to me (and my
query letter to was mailed for his reaction), it can only be interpreted as
his opinion that my philosophy of Essence will be so regarded. What other
conclusion can you draw?
> A lot of the time, I find "God" used in a very similar way to how I
> would use "DQ". Both are supposed to have created the world that we
> experience. Have there been MD discussions on this point? ...
On the point of DQ being the Creator, per se? I haven't seen any.
> Because I
> must say, Ham, that I'm rather surprised at the emphasis you place on
> points such as this, while you seem to assume that you're saying
> something that MD'ers find outrageous. How did you come to this
> conclusion? ...
I emphasize this point because it is critical to the message and substance
of the MoQ. If DQ is indeed the primary source -- not simply a metaphorical
way of understanding physical existence -- then it should be posited as the
essential Source, whether positivists or others choose to regard it as God
or a "supernatural" entity. Anything less than that is avoidance of the
philosopher's obligation to his public.
> You seem to label most MoQ'ers as nihilists, but how can
> that be, when the MoQ says that values and morals are real - indeed
> that they are built into the fabric of reality?
Values and morals mean different things to different people. For, example,
I don't associate "morality" with essential value. A morality system is a
code of behavior that is designed (by humans) to accommodate the needs of
their particular society or culture. The measure of one's morality is
therefore relative. The assertion that values and morals are "built into
the fabric of reality" has never made sense to me. Such pronouncements
about the nature of reality remind me of the liberals' credo that all people
are intinsically good, (hence, of equal value) which is empirically
nonsensical.
The fact that MoQers define value as something "good" or "better" does not
mean they believe in a transcendent value -- something that connects them to
a primary Source. Without that link value is only a measure of worth or
esteem, and does not suffice as the kind of belief that rises above
nihilism.
Incidentally, I don't think I'm "demeaning" anyone here by calling them
nihilists. Apart from objections such as yours to the term, I see no
evidence that the MoQ or its author wants to advance anything other than a
nihilistic philosophy.
Regards,
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 13 2005 - 19:10:13 BST