[Ron]:
> See, this is what I didn't like about Moq either, is the
interpretation
> of reality being fundementally a goodness called energy, that the
> universe is a moral order of betterness because betterness is
> relative isn't it? Better for who? Better for what? Ham, all I have to
> offer is this quote to try to explain Pirsig's theory Perhaps your
> assesment of him being merely an evolutionist is correct, perhaps
> he paints goodness as natural phenomena.
>
> "Good is conformity to an established pattern of fixed values and
value
> objects". Lila 119
[Ham]
I don't see that this statement adds anything to our understanding. All
it
says is that we seek values that are good. So, what else is new?
I don't know where your next two quotes come from. They are credited to
Dewey (in 1920) but Pirsig wasn't born until 1928. Essentially they
assert
that dynamic quality is an end toward which nature is heading but never
achieves, and that both Dewey and Pirsig agree that evolution is moral.
What do you want me to say, Ron? I know of no evidence to support the
claim
that evolution is "good" or "moral". Some biological processes become
more
complex, some are reduced and die out. Is that goodness? Is the end
result
moral? Who knows? Protagoras wrote; "Man is the measure of all
things."
Shakespeare asked: "What is good, right or wrong but thinking makes it
so?"
Both were saying that the value or goodness of a thing is not a
universal
principle but a human appraisal. It's nice to believe that atoms value
each
other and that the universe aspires toward goodness but, like the Tooth
Fairy, it's only the euphemism of a novelist.
What is good or bad is a subjective judgment relating to me. If it
brings
me pleasure, health, or wealth it's good, and it's something I value.
Likewise, morality is the social consensus of what is good for the
members
of the society. I cannot relate to evolution in the natural world; it
has
no particular value for me. As far as I'm concerned, we live in an
amoral
universe which would have no value if there were no awareness of it.
Man
serves to bring value into existence -- to make value aware. He
provides an
external perspective of essential value which perfects Essence.
{Ron]
Some good points, I share some of the same views in this regard.
[Ron]previously:
> Ham, I hope my queries are not irritating you, I am not
> intending it to. I value the discussion and seek stimulating
> discourse. I'm not going to steadfastly defend MOQ and
> bash Essentialism; it would be rude, irrational and of poor
> form but I am interested in why others think the way they do.
> With that in mind and sans-sarcasim may I ask you what
> brought you to MOQ and this forum. If its theories are that
> uncorrelative with your own? one would think why
> bother with MOQ at all?
[Ham]
Indeed, I continue to ask myself the same question. I was initially
drawn
to the MoQ in 2002 while researching "Value" for my website thesis. I
saw
that Pirsig had developed an esthetic philosophy based on quality and
hoped
that it held the answers to some of my questions. I wrote to him twice
with
queries; he replied to my first letter rather tersely, commenting on the
similarity of our philosophies, but stating that he was now retired and
interested more in sailboating than philosophy. (There was no response
to
the second letter.)
By the way, Ron, while I believe the MoQ is weakly supported by the
author's
metaphysics, I have no intention of competing with Pirsig, who has done
quite well for a philosopher whose academic training was in English.
(I'm
told he is now "required reading" in college philosophy classes.) I
enjoyed
Pirsig's two novels and SODV paper, although I didn't learn much
philosophy
from them. Meanwhile I've gleaned much about contemporary thinking from
the
participants here, but recently have limited my participation to matters
involving metaphysics. I have a book coming out later this year and,
depending on the interest generated, may eventually bow out of this
forum.
That's my story. What's yours?
[Ron]
I look forward to the release of your work and wish you the best with
your endeavors.
my story,
I started dabbeling in amatuer philosophy in art school and while
working as a freelance illustrator.
I read ZAMM at the age of 23 rather reluctantly because of it's cult
status. I read it three times
back to back the craftsmanship theories system theories and generally
questioning and digging
for the origins of the popular culture really struck a chord. This may
not have been a philosophy
but it sure excited me to begin to study philosophy in greater depth.
realizing logic traps was
the greatest boon to me and applying care to what I did realizing how I
approached a problem was
every bit as important as the method to solving it. This was monumental
to one who grew up
watching his father fight with mechanical objects who viewed life
through murphy's laws
an objective pessimist thinking the mechanical world was out to get him.
Years went by I got married had kids dropped art for engineering still
dabbled in religeon
and philosophy and two years ago my brother was diagnosed with cancer.
In the last month of his life
we whittled away the hours together discussing what it all means and
what do you think happens
and is there a god, that sort of stuff. I told him a lot about what I
thought and read. after he
passed away (which incidentally was just about 1 year ago) I began to
question what I told him.
grief stricken, I read Lila to help take my mind off things but it
brought about more questions.
After Taking a deep dive into a morose depression and leveling off I
began to search on the web
for anything else Pirsig to gain a better understanding of what he meant
and found MOQ.org
I got into the discussion group in hopes of having these questions
answered. I have learned
a great deal here and after some rocky points feel generally pretty good
about things once again.
I'm not a philosopher nor am I classically schooled, my biggest advance
in my thinking has been
while engaged in this forum. As I said the pragmatic aspect of MOQ is
what draws me.. Proving
this to anyone seems rather absurd. It simply works for me. I may not
agree with all of it
but again, I don't have to.
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
