From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Sun Jul 27 2003 - 17:13:22 BST
Ian, Scott, All:
> Scott said [Quote]
> The presumption is, and I think it's a good presumption, that by thinking
> over, and valuing the E-MOQ, we will by and by contribute to the creation
> of a U-MOQ (in each individually, eventually, into the society). The
> problem, which has been mentioned often, is that we tend to use U-SOM to
> think over the E-MOQ. Indeed, to characterize an E-metaphysics *as* an
> expression of a U-metaphysics, comes out of U-SOM. It assumes that language
> is used to describe reality, which it clearly is, in U-SOM. But is this
> true of U-MOQ? But isn't that last question a U-SOM question?
Ian
> For me the "presumption" is an "optimistic hope", but nevertheless it would
> be the achievement of an awesome vision to actualy find a U-MOQ, maximum
> respect etc. But it is not actually necessary to the value (truth, quality,
> virtue, geddit ?) of the E-MOQ.
>
> And if I could just pick out a single phrase from Scott ...
>
> "The problem is ... we tend to use U-SOM-think over E-MOQ"
> This is my Catch-22 of life in general.
First, I don't think we need to invent a whole new code (U-SOM, E-MOQ, U-
MOQ, E-SOM) to explain the difference between unspoken assumptions and
spoken words. We all carry around a model of how we believe the world
works, or as Scott put it, "an underlying sense of reality." And no one
argues with Scott that this model or sense "shapes one's perceptions and
thinking." Pirsig made this much simpler and easier to understand in Lila
when he talked about each of us wearing spectacles through which we
interpret the raw data of experience. Haven't we confused the casual
reader enough with our MOQ, SOM, DQ, ZMM, Q-, S/O, etc. shorthand
expressions without adding more?
Second, Pirsig addressed Ian's Catch 22 in two notes in Lila' Child in
response to the same question I raised years ago about the MOQ being an
SOM metaphysics in disguise because of the necessity to use SOM
assumptions and language to describe the MOQ.
Note 132: "Remember that the central reality of the MOQ is not an object
or a subject or anything else. It is understood by direct experience only
and not by reasoning of any kind. Therefore to say that the MOQ is based
on SOM reasoning is a useful as saying the Ten Commandments are based on
SOM reasoning. It doesn't tell us anything about the essence of the Ten
Commandments and it doesn't tell us anything about the essence of the
MOQ."
Note 133: "I think this conclusion undermines the MOQ, although that is
obviously not Platt's intention. It is like saying that science is really
a form of religion. There is some truth to that, but it has the effect of
dismissing science as really not very important. The MOQ is in opposition
to subject-object metaphysics. To say that it is part of that system which
it opposes sounds like a dismissal. I have read that the MOQ is the same
as Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Hegel, James, Pierce, Nietzsche, Bergson
and many others though these people are not held to be saying the same as
each other. This kind of comparison is what I have meant by the term,
'philosophology.' It is done by people who are not seeking to understand
what is written but only to classify it so they don't have to see it as
anything new. . . . I see a lowering of the quality of the MOQ itself if
you follow this path of subordinating it to that which it opposes."
Pirsig cleaned my clock, and I'm grateful. :-)
Platt
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 : Sun Jul 27 2003 - 17:12:16 BST