Hello everyone
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 3:35 AM, Ham Priday <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> To all MOQers --
>
> On Sat, Oct. 30 at 5:30 PM, Dan Glover wrote:
>
>> Hi Ham
>> Thank you for your response. I agree that "betterness" is relative. I
>> have a problem with an independent "observer", however. Quality, or
>> "betterness", doesn't reside in the observer or the observed. It comes
>> before that distinction. Remember the part in ZMM where Phaedrus
>> goes between the horns of subject and object?
>>
>> In light of Robert Pirsig's writings, it seems clear that the MOQ
>> would state there are no "free choices." We are suspended in a vast
>> web of social and intellectual patterns that make up our culture. This
>> "self" that you posit is a fiction... albeit a convenient fiction.
>> Point to it. Where is the self?
>>
>> We must agree to disagree, Ham. I know from reading your past
>> posts that you've put much thought into your philosophy. However,
>> it seems at odds with the MOQ in very fundamental ways. The
>> "individual" is a fiction. There is no observer sitting detached and apart
>> from the universe. Within the framework of the MOQ, the "individual"
>> is a set of co-mingled patterns of value. When society establishes law,
>> it does so by implementing both social and intellectual patterns of value
>> to ensure the cooperation of biological patterns that might otherwise
>> usurp society. Who was it that said you'd get farther with a smile and
>> a gun than just a smile? The MOQ would seem to agree.
>>
>> An "authentic" society would seem to sit apart from the inauthentic.
>> It would have no chance of becoming "better" and would die of stagnation.
>
> This concerns me profoundly. Dan is a charter MD'er whose masterful
> compilation of Pirsig's statements
> (Lila's Child) has earned him respect as a foremost interpreter of the
> author's philosophy. I think this post underscores the fundamental
> differences between the Metaphysics of Quality and my Philosophy of Essence
> more startlingly than any other comments I have read. It's frustrating to
> hear complaints that I "fail to understand" the MoQ; much more vexing is a
> message from one who comprehends Essentialism sufficiently to cite those
> issues that make it "fundamentally at odds" with what I do understand of
> Pirsig's thesis.
>
> Of course this comes as no surprise to me. Indeed, it should be obvious to
> most of you that my ontology has fundamental differences with the "official
> doctrine". In a sense, I feel some empathy for Bodvar who lost a long, hard
> battle to advance his idiosyncratic concept of Intellect. Inasmuch as one's
> belief system is developed over time and tends to be fixated at a certain
> stage, I consider philosophic differences a matter of personal choice. As
> an individualist, I'm also opposed to authoritarian obeisance. None of that
> was hinted at here; on the contrary, Dan's argument was offered in the
> spirit of "agreeing to disagree."
Hi Ham
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I don't know that there is an
"official doctrine" in the framework of the MOQ nor am I any kind of
authority if there is. I leave that for others more able than I am to
advance the ideas presented by Robert Pirsig. I have very little
interest in academic pursuits. Having said that...
Bodvar didn't lose the battle so much as he continually lambasted us
with his One True MOQ. Anyone who dared disagree with him was labeled
as weak-minded. He even went so far as to claim some weird connection
with the so-called strong and weak interpretation of quantum theory.
But it was clear to anyone reading his posts that that was simply a
veiled way of insulting those who refused to agree with him. There was
a time when like you I felt some empathy towards Bo, but over the
years that feeling evaporated and was replaced with deep frustration
at his rigidity and stuckness. It got to the point that his idea was
infecting the whole discussion to the degree that nothing else
mattered but SOL.
There is a very real danger there. Not the ideas that Bo espoused, but
the fixation that he developed, the rigidity of thought that seemed to
encompass his whole demeanor. If we are not here to learn and grow,
then what are we here for? I am wrong more often than right. I know
that. That's why I will never claim to be an authority. It is our
mistakes that allow us to grow. If we are right, then where do we go
from there?
>Ham:
> Before I am ejected from this forum for noncompliance, however, let me
> stress (in Dan's words) what being a Pirsigian requires you to believe, and
> how this is viewed by an Essentialist.
>
> Dan agrees that "'betterness' is relative," which means it is NOT an
> absolute state of the universe, as some here insist. However, he denies
> that the 'observer' has anything to do with it. In fact, he rejects the
> very notion of an "independent observer" because, he says, "the 'self' is a
> fiction." Like Marsha, he asks: "Where is the self? Point to it."
>
> Morality is not an expression of individual value judgments, since "the
> 'individual' is a set of co-mingled patterns of value." Nor is man, as
> defined by Pirsig, a free agent: "it seems clear that the MOQ would state
> there are no 'free choices'". Says Dan: "When society establishes law, it
> does so by implementing both social and intellectual patterns of value
> [presumably residing in the Quality aura] to ensure the cooperation of
> biological patterns that might otherwise usurp society."
>
> Now, if betterness (Goodness) is relative, it has to be relative to the
> observer who realizes it. If there is no observer ('self' or 'agent') there
> is no moral value realized. Then again, if the universe is totally moral
> (as Pirsig suggests), there is no NEED to realize it. Instead, mankind
> automatically yields to the universal principal. Yes, this is
> "determinism"; and I happen to believe, along with the Founders of our free
> republic, that man is endowed by his Creator with Life, Liberty, and the
> Pursuit of Happiness. What is Liberty if not Freedom? How is man a free
> creature if his moral behavior is determined by Natural Law instead of by
> his own value-sensibility?
Dan:
As I stated above, we often become fixated on ideas to the exclusion
of all others. We are not free by any stretch of the imagination. We
are compelled to follow the laws of society or be dealt with
accordingly. The observer you posit is in no way independent. It is
part and parcel of the universe. If we are independent individuals
separate and apart from that which we observe, how is it we can
interact at all? Now, it is a convenient way of viewing reality, a way
we have been taught since birth... and this subject-object notion is
deeply ingrained in all of us, in our language, in the way we think.
But it isn't a fundamental part of our nature any more than any of our
other routines we have grown used to over the course of a lifetime.
>Ham:
> Finally, assuming you are not an authoritarian, do you accept Dan Glover's
> premise that "an 'authentic' society would have no chance of becoming
> "better" and would die of stagnation"?
>
> I appreciate Dan's honesty and candor, and am grateful that he chose this
> opportunity to confront me with the contradictions I'm responsible for
> articulating. At the same time, I submit that resolving these fundamental
> issues is crucial in completing everyone's personal belief system. If you
> are uncomfortable with the conclusions posited for the MoQ, can you with
> full integrity endorse them for yourself and others?
Dan:
Well, again, if I ever fully endorse anything, I suspect it will be
death as I have fully endorsed life. But these ideas, they are meant
to grow and evolve, becoming better and better as time goes by. If
that ever stops, then I guess I will finally be an authority.
>Ham:
> So, just what do you believe? Think about it folks. Tuesday is Election
> Day in the U.S. and I've told people "it doesn't hurt you a bit to cast your
> vote in the ballot box, but it can hurt you a lot if you don't." By the
> same token, your personal persuasions are yours to choose; the quality of
> your life-experience depends on them.
Dan:
True, that. Get out and vote. I agree. But do so with care. Don't let
the day to day craziness influence you as so many seem to be doing
these days. There are no easy fixes to this economic morass we find
ourselves in. And resorting to the regression offered by the extreme
right wing is only going to exacerbate the situation, not make it
better. We need to make things better, not regress.
Thank you,
Dan
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
