From: Scott Roberts (jse885@localnet.com)
Date: Tue Nov 22 2005 - 18:09:06 GMT
Case,
[Case]
I don't think I have equivocated at all. I am steadfast in my conviction
that DQ is not the same as Quality, that it is one of the two polar
opposites that spin out of the Quality monism. As you have pointed out
Pirsig seems to share your view and what I regarded as understandable
exuberance on his part is actually what he meant. I still disagree with this
position and think it strips the MoQ of its potential to actually be a
useful metaphysics.
and
[Case]
The more I research this, with reference to Lila, the less support I find
for my position. Pirsig does say these things and I do disagree with them.
So according Ian's recent post:
"'Pro-MoQ' means - I think the MoQ is mostly correct and valuable, with a
few clarifications / intepretations (and resolutions of contradictions) that
might make it better or more comprehensive.
'Anti-MoQ' means - I think the MoQ is mostly wrong or useless, and here are
my alternatives to kill it off and replace it completely."
Can I still be in the Pro camp? I think I am a pretty orthodox ZMMer.
Scott:
In this I am pretty much on your side, which is to say, against Pirsig. My
talk about contradictory identity is roughly based on the same objection to
the MOQ that you have (with a couple of differences -- see below).
Basically, I see the way the MOQ treats DQ and SQ as overly dualistic,
leading to such non-Buddhist statements like "evolving toward DQ", and of
privileging DQ over SQ. Instead, I prefer the formulation of Coleridge,
which he described as "two forces of one Power, one expanding, and one
confining". Also, I see the MOQ as violating the basic principle of
philosophical Buddhism, from the Heart Sutra, that "form is formlessness,
formlessness is form". Which leads me to the differences:
- I do regard DQ as undefinable, because it is the force that defines. It is
formless, since it is the force that breaks form to create new form. Part of
this is to say that I agree with Pirsig that his use of 'dynamic' must be
distinguished from the physicist's meaning.
- I don't see DQ and SQ as "emerging" from Quality. Rather, I see Quality
(that is, experience, value, meaning) as being both the cause and the result
of the interplay of DQ with SQ. (Take this "both cause and result" as the
language of causation breaking down.)
- I disagree with your view that harmony is the good. Rather, I see it to be
good to move in and out of harmony. Music would be boring without
dissonance, for example. Too much of either harmony or dissonance is bad.
Anyway, to your question about "can I still be in the Pro camp?". When I
started here, I thought I was in the Pro camp despite a few differences in
interpretation, but after a while I found it easier to be in the Anti. In
part this was due to trying to argue with people like DMB and Mark M, whose
preferred method of arguing is to fling insults about your intelligence when
anything of the MOQ gets questioned. One wants to hit back by showing how
their beliefs in the MOQ are unfounded. But it is also that I found more and
more little things wrong in the MOQ, such as its confusion over how it uses
'subject' and 'object', the way it handles the hot stove example, and so
forth. Bo claims that the MOQ solves all the platypi. On closer examination,
it mostly just renames the dualities that produced them. After a while I
realized that the difference between me and Pirsig was that I was starting
from one form of philosophical mysticism, and he from another. So I now
think of myself in the Anti camp. However, I think Ian's version of
"Anti-MOQ" is too strong. I don't want to kill it off and replace it
completely, but I think my differences with it are more than differences in
interpretation.
- Scott
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 Nov 22 2005 - 19:21:12 GMT