Re: MD Self-Evident MoQ Truths

From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Tue Aug 09 2005 - 20:47:14 BST

  • Next message: Scott Roberts: "Re: MD Self-Evident MoQ Truths"

    Hi Platt, Paul, Sam and Ian --

    Sam, responding to Ian's question concerning the "substantive" individual,
    said:

    > However, the MOQ *does* deny that there is anything 'essential' or
    > 'intrinsic' to an individual. There is no individual-in-itself. The MOQ
    is
    > antiessentialist which means that the patterns of the individual are
    > considered relational and contingent and could in principle be described
    (or
    > delineated) in an infinite number of alternative ways (but not all are
    > valuable). This means that there is no essential, unchanging, individual
    > self which was there when (or before) you were born that will remain (or
    be
    > judged or whatever) when you are dead. This is where I think the MOQ and
    > Christianity may be at odds.

    To which Paul assiduously reminded him of the official MoQ position:

    > This is a recurring objection to the MOQ which I thought had been
    > put to bed. As far as I can tell, it is clear that the MOQ *does not*
    deny
    > that we can talk about distinct individuals as coherent sets of
    particular
    > patterns - in fact that is the MOQ definition of an individual.

    Platt's response to this concession was all too kind, as usual:

    > Nice to see this in black and white: the MOQ does not deny distinct
    > individuals. Yes, indeed. And distinct individuals like the brujo are the
    > catalyst of societal evolution.

    But Paul wasn't finished with his anti-individualist manifesto:

    > However, the MOQ *does* deny that there is anything 'essential' or
    > 'intrinsic' to an individual. There is no individual-in-itself. The MOQ
    > is antiessentialist which means that the patterns of the individual are
    > considered relational and contingent and could in principle be described
    > (or delineated) in an infinite number of alternative ways (but not all are
    > valuable). This means that there is no essential, unchanging, individual
    > self which was there when (or before) you were born that will remain (or
    be
    > judged or whatever) when you are dead. This is where I think the MOQ and
    > Christianity may be at odds.

    Gentlemen, the push to include a suitable definition for the individual will
    not end until (or unless) MoQ's founders come to realize its metaphysical
    significance. Mr. Pirsig's philosophy is based on the premise that reality
    is the experience of Quality. Only the human individual possesses this
    experience. It is not held in common at some insentient level; it is not an
    amalgam of biology-culture-society. The principle of individual awareness
    is just as immutable as the primary reality from which it derives.
    Experience is the fulcrum balancing the individual and his reality. Without
    it the MoQ would have no philosophical value or following.

    It seems clear to me that MoQ's founders wish to avoid the anthropocentric
    conclusion reasonably inferred from this man/reality relationship. I can
    only assume that Paul's assertion that "the patterns of the individual" are
    "antiessentialist", "that there is no essential, individual self", is a
    denial of subjectivity motivated by an assumed need to reject either dualism
    or transcendentalism -- or both. If the final definition for the autonomous
    agent of experiential reality is "a contingency of insentient patterns", I
    fear that the MoQ will have ignored its "self-evident truths" for mankind
    and will end up in yesterday's trash heap.

    Personally, I hope these furtive appeals to establish the essence of man
    will not go ignored, and that Pirsig's innovative reality concept may be
    spared this fate. But I also see other esthetic-based ontologies being
    introduced out there, some of whose authors may not be so eager to throw the
    babe out with the bathwater. If that be the case, and these new
    philosophies survive, many of us will be turning our attention elsewhere.

    Just a caveat emptor from a "friend of the family".

    Sincerely,
    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 : Tue Aug 09 2005 - 21:24:53 BST