Re: MD Self-Evident MoQ Truths

From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk)
Date: Sat Aug 06 2005 - 11:49:15 BST

  • Next message: Platt Holden: "Re: MD MOQ Society and Health Care"

    Hi Ian,

    *cracking* stuff...

    > Time to break some eggs ...
    > Ian suggests these truths to be self-evident ...
    >
    > (1) MoQ is Pragmatic, Atheistic and Evolutionary

    Pragmatic and Evolutionary, yes, 'Atheistic' you'll need to be careful
    about. RMP claims it is, yes, and it's certainly not theistic, but IMHO
    there's no contradiction between accepting the MoQ and saying that Quality
    is one of the names of God. But I'll let Scott argue that one, because he's
    not vulnerable to a charge of vested interest (Sam pays obeisance to the
    dominant social values of the forum).

    > (2) MoQ intends to be a fundamental unifying view of the whole world,
    > what's in it, what it means, how it all works and interelates. A
    > complete metaphysics in so far as that is pragmatically possible.

    Yep.

    >
    > (3) MoQ intends to change the world for the better, by being an agent
    > of evolutionary change, by providing that view and sense of values at
    > the level of individuals and what they can and should achieve.

    ... by being a high quality intellectual pattern?

    Problem: so far as I'm aware, there's no room for 'individual' in the MoQ
    analysis. There are only the four static levels of patterns plus DQ, and
    'individual' is a superfluous description of the agglomeration of patterns.
    In other words, according to the MoQ, the individual is an epiphenomenon,
    and referring to it will cause confusion. What was it RMP said 'anyone who
    wants to defend it must be prepared to do a lot of work' or something like
    that.

    (I think that's nonsense, but it's one of the ways in which I'm a heretic
    here, of course)

    >
    > (4) MoQ achieves this by providing framework that places the
    > individual in the whole world, notwithstanding any pre-defined social
    > and cultural structures (of what is good, right, known, true) without
    > having to threaten those structures which currently comprise
    > society(ies) and culture(s).
    >

    Same reliance on non-existent 'individual'. I agree with the underlying
    sense though.

    > (5) MoQ places aspects of the individual in relation to the world,
    > above any other socially constructed concepts, and in doing so
    > emphasises aesthetic "oriental" enlightenment over western theistic
    > traditions.

    Erk. Buys into questionable analysis of 'western theistic traditions', but
    it faithfully reflects RMP's perspective, so OK. (Except you're still
    relying on 'individual'.)

    >
    > Ian adds further ....
    >
    > (6) Anyone who buys 1 to 5 above is presumed to be interested in
    > fleshing out practical detail, and promoting a philosophy they support
    > to a point where it empowers enough of the population (including those
    > in positions of social power) that the evolutionary benefits can
    > accrue in the world.

    Sounds good.

    >
    > (7) Anyone who rejects the above is presumed to be peddling an
    > alternative philosophy that conflicts with the one Pirsig and Pirsig
    > scholars have propounded and is, temporarily at least, a drag on the
    > former, even if they are "right" in the long run ;-) In which case
    > they should have faith in the MoQ as suggested, that the truth will
    > out itself by a process of evolution anyway.

    Sometimes a ship wreck can have value to other sailors - "don't go near
    there!" I seem to recall Marsha saying that she thought my opinions garbage,
    but they brought out other people's opinions which she found enlightening.
    So perhaps we heretics are less a drag than the motor for progress, forcing
    the orthodox to develop their opinions further. (Which was exactly what
    happened in the Christian church, of course). And how will the truth out
    itself if heresy is prohibited? Who are the scholars? Is this just going to
    turn into an Ant McWatt fan club?

    > A time to choose ?

    Choose what? Are you trying to eliminate the heretics here?

    Sam

    'What is the use of studying philosophy if it does not improve your thinking
    about the important questions of everyday life?' (Wittgenstein)

    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 : Sat Aug 06 2005 - 12:20:19 BST