Ron --
To be specific:
Bo falls to (and perhaps Pirsig himself)
* The Solve It by Redefining It Trap. This could be called
the Definition Can Do It Trap in that it attempts to solve
problems by redefinition alone.
Ham and Platt fall to
* The Independent Self Trap. In this trap we separate
organism from environment, ourselves from our
interdependence with others.
[Platt responds]:
The "trap" is bogus. It's based on the SOM idea of self/other.
By contrast, the MOQ idea is that an individual is a source of
thought and a collection of ideas . . . "and these ideas take
moral precedence over a society."
Further, only an individual can respond to DQ.
My emphasis on individualism is a matter of moral precedence
that supports the values of creativity, intellect and self-responsibility.
[Ron]:
I'm sorry I don't follow. You say it is bogus then re-affirm it.
How does this contrast with MoQ?
Platt is saying that the independent self is genuine and it's your
"trap" charge that is bogus. I agree.
The trap (or pitfall) of the collective mindset is its failure to
acknowledge
man as an individuated agent. The MoQist is trapped in a nihilistic
universe that has no need of agency but evolves to "betterness" for its own
sake. When you define human being as a "collection of patterns" and
relegate intellect to an extracorporeal "level" you reduce man to a puppet
of biological evolution, thus depriving him of proprietary awareness and the
freedom to act in accordance with his value sensibilities. The MoQ is
an existential philosophy that echoes Sartre's assertion that "man is
unnecessary, since the world exists just as well without him".
I have repeatedly stated here that unrealized value is an epistemological
absurdity. No matter how you define Quality and Value, they do not exist
independently of a sensible agent. Yet, this is the fundamental premise of
Pirsig's ontology.
Platt can speak for himself, but I do not "separate organism from
environment". I do separate man's psychic identity from organic experience,
however. As a being-aware, man is dependent on an 'otherness' for his
individuated existence as well as his experiential reality. Man is the
agency whereby Value is realized as being in the world. Considering that
man is the only creature endowed with both value-sensibility and reason, and
the differentiated world is an intellectual construct of his experience, it
is my contention that the universe is anthropocentric.
Before you charge me with falling into another "trap", show me why I'm
wrong.
Respectfully,
Ham
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/
