Hi David --
[Ham to Horse, previously]:
There are times when I feel compelled to speak out against
ideas which violate what I view as the most fundamental
principles of reality, and denial of the individual self is one
of them. The rejection of man's spiritual quest in the cause
of anti-theism is another. We're all searching for answers,
but bashing the beliefs of others won't get us there. And I
certainly have no desire to undermine the MoQ.
[dmb says]:
Well, it may not be what you intend but you are bashing the
beliefs of others and you are undermining the MOQ, as I've
tried to explain several times. The "fundamental principle of
reality" that you so emphatically insist upon is exactly [what]
the MOQ is designed to replace.
Again, you are simply offering the original problem and
rejecting the solution to that problem. You are entitled to
your own beliefs of course, but you really ought to realize
what a profound mismatch this is.
I've made no attempt to conceal my differences with the MoQ, David. As I
admitted to Dan Glover on 10/31, "it should be obvious to most of you that
my ontology has fundamental differences with the 'official doctrine'". And
I don't regard criticizing the logic of a philosophical postulate "belief
bashing", as you apparently do.
If the subjective self is the problem that the MoQ has allegedly "solved", I
deny that it ever was a "problem". We all participate in a subject/object
world that is the source of all our knowledge. The conscious experience of
that world has its locus in the individual self. The MoQ that Pirsig
"designed to replace it" would have us pretend that we are living an
illusion, that there are no subjects and objects, no freedom to choose, no
role for mankind other than to go with the flow to "betterness" that is
automatic in the author's evolutionary Quality. I follow the epistemology
that there is no Quality (Value) that is not realized, which suggests that
man, not the universe, is the free agent of value who shapes the course of
history. By dismissing individual freedom, Pirsig reduces the human being
to little more than an automaton of Nature with no will or purpose of his
own. .
I'd also point out that anti-theism is NOT a rejection of religion
or spirituality. Theism is just one particular KIND of religion and
the MOQ is more compatible with the non-theistic varieties. It
rejects faith and supernaturalism but it is a form of philosophical
mysticism. In that sense, it is very, very concerned with the
spiritual quest.
In ZMM Pirsig says ""When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called
insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called a Religion."
In the Copleston Annotations, Pirsig notes: "The MOQ is atheistic". Is this
not a rejection of religion? And what supports your conclusion that one can
be religious and reject "faith and supernaturalism"?
Also, the kind of "metaphysics" you're doing is considered -
by most philosophers- to be dead. This is true even among
many contemporary theologians, where metaphysics still
survives to some small extent. (See Wrathall's book "Religion After
Metaphysics", for example.) You are beating a dead horse ...
Metaphysics deals with the theoretical fundamentals of philosophy, so I'm
neither surprised nor discouraged by the fact that other authors have
denounced
certain concepts that I've posited. I fully suspect that Pirsig's concepts
would also have been rejected or attacked by visionaries of the past. That's
'par for the course' for anyone attempting to advance an original
philosophy.
Again, you're entitled to think what you want but please
understand that you ARE undermining the MOQ with your
"essentialism" and you ARE bashing the "beliefs" of MOQers.
If the points I have disputed in this forum are sufficient to "undermine the
MOQ," then I would have to suggest that the MOQ is founded on quicksand. As
you see, Horse has assured me that being "at odds with aspects of the MoQ"
does not constitute a reason for rejection. I'll stand by the
administrator's decision, not yours, David.
Your gratuitous comments about joining the Catholic church and selling magic
to scientists are too churlish to merit a serious response.
But thanks for the advice. I'll sleep on it.
--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/md/archives.html
