RE: MD The Intellectual Level

From: Ian Glendinning (ian@psybertron.org)
Date: Mon Jul 28 2003 - 00:24:53 BST

  • Next message: khoo hock aun: "Re: MD Intellect and its critics"

    Well Platt, I have to disagree with Pirsig, or rather your use of his
    arguments against me.

    Firstly, I'm not sure where the E / U distinction is adequetely summarised
    by you as the "difference between unspoken assumptions and
    spoken words" - I'll leave Scott to argue that.

    Secondly, Notes 132 and 133 say nothing to contradict what I said. Quite the
    opposite.

    Note 132 - SOM explanation of MOQ.
    I said, as he does, that it is wrong (low quality) to use SOM to explain
    MOQ. I was simply pointing out, as he did, that some people here seem to
    keep doing it.

    Note 133 - Science as Religion.
    Again my previous (Douglas Adams) post was quite categorical in saying
    science is "awesome" (hardly unimportant), but that it was "religious" to
    suggest it explained literally everything. Consistent with the intent of
    Pirsig's note, if you accept my comparing it to religion is not downplaying
    its importance.

    Ian

    -----Original Message-----
    From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
    [mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]On Behalf Of Platt Holden
    Sent: 27 July 2003 17:13
    To: moq_discuss@moq.org
    Subject: RE: MD The Intellectual Level

    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

    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 : Mon Jul 28 2003 - 00:25:11 BST