Hello Akshay
Indeed such a thing as the everlasting supremacy of the MOQ should never
even be implied. As you point out that naturally goes against the very core
of MOQ, and indeed this is only "another finger pointing to the moon"
something that I believe is widely understood among us here, and should be
emphasised if the MOQ is ever to gain general acceptance as well. There must
be a kind of double edged arguing here I think, for one thing those who
might object to the MOQ on the basis that Ian states: "summarising MoQ in
ways for wider human consumption tend to offend those who focus on the
ineffable koan-like nature of quality" and those that I feel are the main
"enemies"
of the MOQ - that is the SOM crusaders as I like to call them. The first
category I don't really understand, seeing as I find it perfectly natural
and easy to both be a Zen Buddhist and a speaker for MOQ. As Pirsig writes
in Lila, some things you just do, indeed because we feel that they have
high Quality, and that is of course the motivation behind science. And if we
can better our understanding, understanding that we no doubt feel have high
Quality - why should we not? If someone feel that their concept of Quality
or of God or of Zen or anything of the like is harmed by MOQ, I say that
perhaps there was something amiss with the original thoughts about it. The
best thing about the MOQ is after all that nothing (as far as we can see) is
left out.
But it is the other edge that I think must be concentrated on, the SOM
edge, and the myth that SOM is the ultimate tool for understanding. Here
comes the importance to shoot that myth down. To do so I think we should all
collect as many platypi as we can, and while I can't be certain, I don't
think that my area of (coming at least) expertise (history) will provide the
most of them, not by itself, but put together, from all fields of science or
the academic world perhaps the holes would become obvious I think. There is
a trend in historical research now as many may have noticed, and that is the
trend of the post-modernistic idea of not making any kind of generalization
or explanation model at all, but merely to state as clear facts as possible.
No doubt you can understand my meaning that this goes against the very
meaning of studying history, and reduces it to gossip - but the problem is
the same everywhere. You look at one thing, within your own field, and keep
your line of sight limited, so as to not see the flaws of the SOM - so as to
keep from having to say that things doesn't add up.
Well, lets put together a list, a book even, and show the flaws in all of it's
ugliness, drag them into the light so to speak. Then we can move on to mend
those holes, when it is absolutely clear that they need to be mended.
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 20:17:46 +0530
> From: "Akshay Peshwe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [MD] The Advancement of MOQ
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Message-ID:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Hello Christoffer,
>
> I see that you are devoted to the philosophy of MoQ. It is surely
> beneficial
> if we change the way people see the world, by giving them a broader,
> deeper
> and richer framework of thinking, that not only draws the interest of
> philosophers but is also of pragmatic value. To compile a list such as the
> one you suggest needs a lot of planning. Firstly, you have to make three
> sections (metaphysics, epistemology and ethics) and then again in
> subdivisions, by referring to a hierarchical dictionary on philosophy,
> writing out the misconception and its correction as suggested by the MoQ.
> Secondly, the question of who exactly is qualified to edit this list needs
> to be resolved (or perhaps the articles in the list will need to be
> classified as authentic or inductive). Thirdly, who is to undertake the
> responsibility of the entire project? I don't think Pirsig alone would
> more
> than validate and initiate the entire procedure.
>
> On a perhaps unrelated note, I do remember Pirsig saying that the MoQ is
> not
> "written down in stone" (in his paper titled "Subjects, Objects, Data and
> Values", I think) and of course, Phaedrus' famous line, that of the pencil
> being mightier than the pen. Hence, if we let our motivation for such an
> endeavour be that of removing misconceptions and enriching paradigms, then
> we can succeed, instead of if we set on a propoganda to show how the MoQ
> is
> valid (you never suggested any such thing; mentioned for its own sake).
>
> I hope Pirsig would descend to our plane of discussion to participate
> in such an endeavour.
>
> Akshay
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/
