>> [Magnus] >> Right! DQ is given way too much credit in these events. Attributing it >> to DQ makes it too easy to transform DQ into something religious. > > DM: If we do not allow DQ some divine qualities, is there not a danger > that others will be driven to create something else to attach these > qualities to? > Can divine/transcendental/sacred qualities and values be excluded from > MOQ? Would that notbe bad and a reduction of human experience for > awful & presumably ideological reasons? > > [Krimel] > I don't think it makes sense to talk about DQ like this at all. DQ is not > a thing or a force. It is a property of Quality. It has descriptive value > not causal efficacy.
[Chris] I'd just like to jump in and give this another perspective: in a presumed future where the MOQ has replaced the SOM (well, you know what I mean) the important thing here is that if some people would choose to call Quality or, perhaps, see Dynamic Quality as something divine, that wouldn't really hurt the MOQ. I mean, in philosophy you always come back to the causation God, and even in the MOQ we may ask: where did Quality come from? You don't have to ask that question, because it really doesn't matter, but my point is, that just as today where a scientist may believe that he is studying the intricacies of Gods Creation, if people choose to think of Quality as something Divine that doesn't matter, as long as everybody recognizes that Quality is a real thing. Like today people say that matter and thoughts are real things. It doesn't matter if they think God is behind it, not in the big picture. [Krimel] First of all not even Pirsig says the MoQ should replace SOM. It may augment SOM or expand SOM but not replace it. Second, if the MoQ were going to have as significant impact, it would already be having one. One measure of a useful and productive theory in science at least is how much research or discussion it stimulates, how many new questions it lets us ask, how it allows us to reframe old questions. No offense intended but the MoQ fails on all counts. Lila was published almost 20 years ago and the response not just from academia but from the culture at large has been underwhelming. ZMM has spawned more in the way of retrospective road trips than serious inquiry or debate. Pirsig himself shows no signs of pushing the project forward so those of us who have hopes for the future of the MoQ are sitting around awaiting the arrival of Pirsig's Apostle Paul or Chuang Tsu. Dan made a nice stab with Lila's Child and Bo keeps volunteering for the job but so far Pirsig's butterflies have not produced a real storm anywhere. Third, Pirsig describes the MoQ as antitheistic. I have argued against such a view before and would do so again. It seems rather theo-neutral to me. But nevertheless I would think calling DQ divine would be a mistake. Nor do I think, "...in philosophy you always come back to the causation God..." Such a philosophy would more properly be called theology; Ham's Essentialism for example or Whitehead's Process Philosophy which has had its greatest impact as Process Theology. Fourth, I don't think anyone in the MoQ asks where Quality comes from. The question just doesn't have meaning. Fifth, while some scientists may see themselves as, "studying the intricacies of Gods Creation" I would hope this has no significant impact on what they actually do. Whatever impact it has is unlikely to be positive. Sixth, when you say it doesn't matter if people think Quality is divine; or it doesn't matter if God is behind it; I think you have nailed it. It doesn't matter. 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/
