From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Sat Aug 06 2005 - 13:18:48 BST
Hi Ian, Sam:
My reaction to your "truths" is the same as Sam's, only he says it better
than I could.
Platt
> 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
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 - 14:28:18 BST