I agree strongly and completely on the last part of your abstraction, Arlo, schould be clear that reason is the guidance,REASON, yes,superb observation. Good interactions with DMB, nice thread. (Adrie)
2010/8/10 ARLO J BENSINGER JR <[email protected]> > [Platt began] > Whether the MOQ is an intellectual pattern or a metaphysics or something > else... > > [Arlo] > You do realize what the "M" in "MOQ" stands for, don't you? > > I am convinced this problem is two-fold; beginning with the narrative genre > used by Pirsig ("The Metaphysics of Quality says...") and the > solidification of > the acronym (The MOQ) that leads people to have to ponder whether "the > METAPHYSICS of Quality" is a metaphysics "or something else"... I mean, > c'mon... > > The end-result is the SOLists deifying the Word, confusing the "map" with > the > "territory" it attempts to describe. And so we see ridiculous statements > like > 'when the MOQ is defined and analyzed it becomes an intellectual pattern'. > > The Metaphysics of Quality IS an attempt to define and analyze Quality. It > does > not precede definition, it IS definition. What should be clearly 'When > Quality > is defined and analyzed it becomes an intellectual pattern' gets confused > into > something that makes no sense. > > [Platt] > I simply call it a world view and believe the better discussion is whether > or > not the MOQ is superior to other world views. > > [Arlo] > Are "world views" patterns of value? Are you saying there are other "world > views" on your level above intellect, or outside intellect, or wherever off > which Pirsig's metaphysics exists in parallel? I'm not saying better or > worse > here, at all, just saying these other "world views" are to the MOQ like > Cartesian are to Polar coordinates; not morally inferior according to the > hierarchy, just "worse" in your estimation? > > [Platt] > The "Aristotelian framework" is what I consider the intellectual level to > be, > dominated by S/O patterns. > > [Pirsig] > "First of all I should say that I don't know whether Phædrus' claim that > Quality is the Tao is true. ... That sounds like an overwhelming rejection > of > what he thought and said, but it isn't. I think it's a statement he would > have > agreed with himself, since ANY description of Quality is a kind of > DEFINITION > and must therefore fall short of its mark. I think he might even have said > that > statements of the kind he had made, which fall short of their mark, are > even > worse than no statement at all, since they can be easily MISTAKEN for TRUTH > and > thus retard an understanding of Quality. ... > > No, he did nothing for Quality or the Tao. What benefited was REASON. He > showed > a way by which reason may be EXPANDED to include elements that have > previously > been unassimilable and thus have been considered irrational. I think it's > the > overwhelming presence of these irrational elements CRYING FOR ASSIMILATION > that > creates the present bad quality, the chaotic, disconnected spirit of the > twentieth century. ... > > ... The dictum that Science and its offspring, technology, are "value > free," > that is, "quality free," HAS GOT TO GO. It's that "value freedom" that > UNDERLINES the death-force effect to which attention was brought early in > the > Chautauqua." (ZMM, emphases Arlo's) > > > > > 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 > -- parser 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
