From: Joe (jhmau@sbcglobal.net)
Date: Mon Jul 05 2004 - 18:51:43 BST
On 3 July 2004 8:13 Am Platt writes to Anthony
Hi Anthony,
> > I think the primary consideration is to
> > concentrate on improving the general quality of life (i.e. by employing
the
> > MOQ) rather than getting too hung up on any previous economic systems.
>
> This and your support of socialism and mine of capitalism brings up a
> more general question that I hope you (and perhaps others) will comment >
on, namely the following quote from Lila, Chap. 29 in which Pirsig writes:
> "He wanted particularly to see how much actual evidence there was for the
> statement that James's whole purpose was to "unite science and religion."
> That claim had turned him against James years ago, and he didn't like it
any
> better now. When you start out with an axe like that to grind, it's almost
> guaranteed that you will conclude with something false. The statement
> seemed more like some philosophological simplification written by someone
> with a weak understanding of what philosophy is for. To put philosophy in
the
> service of any social organization or any dogma is immoral. It's a lower
form
> of evolution trying to devour a higher one." (Lila, 29)
Hi Platt, Anthony, and all,
joe: as I read through Pirsig's musing on James' position, in the rest of
the chapter, I found:
"What Phaedrus saw was that the Metaphysics of Quality avoided this attack
by making it clear that the good to which truth is subordinate is
intellectual and Dynamic Quality, not practicality. The misunderstanding of
James occurred because there was no clear intellectual framework for
distinguishing social quality from intellectual and Dynamic Quality, and in
his Victorian lifetime they were monstrously confused. But the Metaphysics
of Quality states that practicality is a social pattern of good. It is
immoral for truth to be subordinated to social values since that is a lower
form of evolution devouring a higher one." (Lila 29)
joe: i do not see anything here which denies the intellectual level's
concern with Dynamic Quality in the Social level. Putting the static
quality MOQ philosophy above mystical apprehension of Dynamic Quality at the
social level is immoral.
Joe Maurer
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 05 2004 - 18:50:30 BST