From: david buchanan (dmbuchanan@hotmail.com)
Date: Sat Aug 06 2005 - 21:17:50 BST
Ian, Sam and all MOQers:
Ian suggests these numbered truths are self-evident:
(1) MoQ is Pragmatic, Atheistic and Evolutionary
Sam replied:
>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).
dmb says:
So that charge still stings, eh Sam? So much that its going to keep you from
even trying to make a case? You're just gonna make naked assertions and let
Scott back you up because he's not wearing a priest's collar? I think this
move is evasive and utterly unpersuasive. I don't the logic here at all. You
know about Pirsig's explicit description of the MOQ as "anti-theistic", the
idea that only a true mystic can equate DQ with God and you know about the
idea that ritualistic religions tend to obscure DQ under static clap-trap.
And yet you can assert that "Quality is one of the names of God"? And how
can I avoid the conclusion that you are talking about anything other than
the Christian God or the Anglican God? Aren't you just trying to put the
theism back into it? I honestly don't understand how you can do that. As I
see it, in all these years, you have not only failed to make a persuasive
case against the MOQ's anti-theism, I don't even think you understand what
the problem is.
Ian continued:
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.
Sam replied:
>... 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)
dmb says:
The MOQ is anti-theistic and so you're the heretic here for following church
doctrine? OK. But this heresy of yours is at the heart of the problem. I
mean, Pirsig's assertions about individual ego consciousness would naturally
seem like nonsense to a Western theist because, as Joseph Campbell puts it,
"Our theology, therefore, begins from the point of view of waking
consciousness and Aristotelian logic; whereas, on another level of
consciousness - and this, the level to which all religions must finally
refer - the ultimate mystery transcends the laws of dualistic logic,
causality and space-time. Anyone who says, as Jesus is reported to have said
(John 10:30), 'I and the Father are One', is declared in our tradition to
have blasphemed. ".
Likewise, Webster's Dictionary defines BLASPHEMY as "1 a: the act of
insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God. b: the act of
claiming the attributes of deity. 2: irreverence toward something considered
sacred or inviolable."
It is this Western sense of self, the ego self, the Ayn Randian self, the
common sense self, our normal "waking consciousness", that prevents you from
seeing what Pirsig and other philosophical mystics are saying. When the
focus of religion becomes social level morality, salvation from sin and all
that it has lost the point and no longer sees that "The final sense of a
religion such as Hinduism or Buddhism is to bring about in the individual an
experience, one way or another, of his own IDENTITY with that mystery that
is the mystery of all being." By contrast, in the West, people who talk like
Jesus get killed or locked up for being crazy. (The full Campbell quote is
in my paper.)
Ian continued:
(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).
Sam replied:
>Same reliance on non-existent 'individual'. I agree with the underlying
>sense though.
dmb says:
The MOQ does not deny the existence of individuals. It simply says that the
subjective ego self is a trap. To the extent that we identify with our egos,
we are trapped by static patterns and are not truly free. The the extent
that we identify with our ego consciousness and all the divisions and
dualites it creates, we are not enlightened. Again, this is what's wrong
with Western theism.
Pirsig in ZAMM p143:
"In all of the Oriental religions great value is placed on the Sanskrit
doctrine of Tat tvam asi, "Thou art that," which asserts that everything you
think you are and everything you think you perceive are undivided. To
realize fully this lack of division is to become enlightened."
From Campbell's THOU ART THAT: Transforming Religous Metaphor:
"Already in the 8th century B.C., in the Chhandogya Upanisad, the key word
to such a meditation is announced; TAT TVAM ASI, "Thou art That", or "You
yourself are It!".
Ian continued:
>>(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.
Sam replied:
>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'.)
dmb says:
Its far from adequate to simply characterize the MOQ's analysis as
"questionable". You gotta say what's questionable about it. I think everyone
understands that you disagree and don't like it, but where's the beef?
Where's your case? I realize that you've been trying, but I'm telling you
that your arguement is very thin and what little there is makes no sense.
Ian takes the gloves off:
(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.
Sam replied:
>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?
dmb says:
As President of the Anthony McWatt fan club, I resent that comment.
Especially from a heretic like you. Tow the line or get the thumb screws,
padre. But seriously, I think everyone learns something when they are
pressed to make a case and this is one of the main reasons that vigorous
debate is so healthy. And I have tons of fun taking on theists like
yourself, but I also emphatically agree with Ian on this point. As I
understand it, any attempt to re-assert theism into the MOQ would only
demonstrate a lack of comprehension. It makes no philosophical sense to do
so no matter how you slice it. It would make about as much sense as trying
to re-assert objectivity or materialism. Either move would only be an
attempt to re-introduce the very things the MOQ seeks to overcome. Its a
case of presenting the disease as if it were a cure. Its quackery. Its not
that I wish to ban dissenters or excommunicate the MOQ heretics, its just a
matter of wasting time on hopeless projects when we should be way past all
that by now. That's why "drag" is exactly the right word for it.
Sam quoted Ludwig:
'What is the use of studying philosophy if it does not improve your thinking
about the important questions of everyday life?' (Wittgenstein)
dmb quotes Bob:
"I think metaphysics is good if it improves everyday life; otherwise forget
it." (Pirsig ZAMM 1974)
Thanks,
dmb
_________________________________________________________________
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfeeŽ
Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
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 - 22:11:17 BST