From: MarshaV (marshalz@charter.net)
Date: Sat Aug 06 2005 - 13:29:48 BST
Hi Sam,
You stated: 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. ----
Did I use the word '"garbage"? I thought I said silly. I guess I lack
eloquence.
Marsha
At 11:49 AM 8/6/2005 +0100, you wrote:
>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
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 - 13:44:52 BST