dmb and all, I accidentally sent the last message before I was finished. I was saying that these principles are ways the world is, and ways of viewing the world and that no one view really can fully incorporate both views, as Pirsig claims. Pirsig favors dynamic quality, just as the I Ching with its two fundamental principles, favors yin, or the change principles.
Both these systems, moq and the I Ching, are essentially the same thing. Both favor the changing, dynamic, becoming principle. They both incorporate a weaker version of the other principle, but not as it would exist in a truly static, or yang system of thought. It's called after all the book of changes, not the book of the changeless, or static, for a reason. This division is the same basic division you see in all eastern thought, and neoplatonism. It is the Apollo and Dionysius split of the Greeks. We see the Greek religious ground motive of the flowing river of dynamic change and becoming of the cthonic, earth lydeities pitted against the Olympian deities of form-justice, beauty, etc., the changless element of the sky. In my older writings I used to refer to this same split as solar vs lunar mythic traditions. Moq is a lunar mythic-religious and philosophical system. It tries to incorporate the solar qualities, but does it only in a reduced form. That is the lunar or (dq) way of seeing the world SEES the solar (sq) reality differently than the solar (sq) sees itself and the lunar (dq). That is both views see and treat their two primary components differently. That's where the deceit its. Moq favors the dynamic reality over the static. And this sabotages its rational element even though it is often unseen. .On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 12:51 AM, Jon Bennett <[email protected]> wrote: > dmb, an all, > > Someone teach me how to do the quoting thing in a reply. What's the secret. > > Let's back up and try to define our terms a bit more, and look more > carefully at world views, and the ideas behind them, so we can trace their > influence. The Enlightenment is actually a very sticky-wicket to define. > And there were different phases in different countries. In the early stages > the Enlightenment was based on Christian theism, and later became quite > atheistic, of course, in France and elswhere. > > But there were at least 2 Enlightenments,a French-German and a > Anglo-American. Furthermore, the Enlightenment was not as influential in > America's formative years. So I'd like to see you present some evidence dmb, > for your and Pirsig's claim (and Campbell would agree with you) that human > rights, democracy, were grounded in Enlightenment thought. > > One source I would reccomend to you is Alan Bloom's "The Closing of the > American Mind". There's a chapter in there called "Two Revolutions > Two States of Nature", describing the philosophical and political > differences between the French and American revolutions. > > The American revolution was more strongly influenced by the thought of > Montesquei, and Burke and the Bible, specifically, the book of Deutoronomy. > The American revolution and political institutions were strongly influenced > by both the first and second great awakenings and their grounding in and > return to the ideas of the Protestant Reformation. > > Even if you claim the Deism of the Enlightenment as an influence on these > rights, and freedom this is still a far cry away from what Pirsig is > proposing with his Moq, which you, yourself claim as anti-theistic > > Even for the Deist like Jefferson the unalienable rights of man, his > freedom, was endowed by a Creator, not by static or dynamic patterns of > quality. > > Also, Pirsig talks out of both sides of his mouth. Or more to the point has > such a lose philosophy that he can stretch and distort it to meet his fancy > or fantasy, or whim as the case may be. That's why I think it is flaky and > deceitful. > > Even from and eastern perspective there is a saying Lao Tzu walks in the > woods, Confucius in society. Moq is closer to Taoism, not the moral > structure of Confucius. > > Pirsig, and his philosophy, like all philosophies that deny the > Creator-creation distinction, try to have their cake, and not eat it too! > This is the fate of all philosophies that focus only on the creation. They > all have two oscillating principles that forever switch back and forth. > > I'd like to also point out and develop in another post how moq and all > other such systems that are based on two fundamental principles, really > favor only one of these principles-not both! This is where and how they > deceive. For these principles say static and dynamic quality are not just > ways the world is believed to be, they are ways of VIEWING the world. And > there is no one view that truly incorportates both views. > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 5:00 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> Jon said: >> The issues of political freedom, the respect for human rights, including >> women's rights and civil rights did not emerge from such a world view as the >> moq, and it is indeed alien to the recognition of such rights. >> >> dmb says: >> >> Well, the ideas about human rights and political freedom emerged from >> Enlightenment philosophers. The MOQ supports these ideas quite vigorously >> and explicitly, although for different reasons than the original thinkers >> might have. "Freedom of speech; freedom of assembly, of travel; trial by >> jury; habeas corpus; government by consent - these 'human rights' are all >> intellectual-vs-society issues. According to the Metaphysics of Quality >> these 'human rights' have not just a sentimental basis, but a rational, >> metaphysical basis. They are essential to the evolution of a higher level of >> life from a lower level of life. They are for real." (Lila 307) >> Jon said: >> I'm sure many on the list are familiar with the work of Joseph Campbell. >> his work is very supportive of Eastern thought, and Prisig's views. Surely >> you will admit he is knowledgeable of the cultures and myths of the world, >> and is an expert in comparative mythology. >> >> >> dmb says: >> >> Yea, I'm a big fan. In Lila, Pirsig recommend's Joseph Campbell's "Masks >> of God". He says if you really want to understand what the social level is >> all about, that's the book to read. Notice how Campbell echoes what Pirsig >> just said about rights and freedom where he says, "they are the truly great >> "new thing" that we do indeed represent to the world and that constitutes >> our Occidental revelation of a properly human spiritual ideal, true to the >> highest potentiality of our species". >> >> >> >> Jon said: >> >> You have these freedoms because you were seen as created in the very image >> of God. And you were endowed by your Creator with these rights because your >> life was seen as sacred. Not a static, certainly not a dynamic pattern, but >> a child of the living God. That is the source of freedom, personal and >> political. >> >> >> >> dmb says: >> >> >> Definitely disagree with you there. As you just saw, Pirsig thinks that >> our rights and freedoms have a rational, evolutionary basis. The MOQ is not >> theistic generally and in some ways it is even anti-theistic. Based on your >> apparent commitments to such beliefs, I suspect you won't find much comfort >> in the MOQ. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _________________________________________________________________ >> The New Busy think 9 to 5 is a cute idea. Combine multiple calendars with >> Hotmail. >> >> http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multicalendar&ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_5 >> 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/md/archives.html >> > > 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/md/archives.html
