On Tues., 11/2 at 1:34 PM, DMB said to Ham:
The MOQ is a solution to a problem and you are denying that
there is a problem. So the solution is quite meaningless to you.
It's worse than that, actually. As you see it, the solution is the
problem. ...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 "... reduces the human being to little more than an automaton
of Nature with no will or purpose of his own."
See, that view of the MOQ is very far from accurate. I'd even say
it's pretty darn slanderous. The MOQ is profoundly humanistic,
in fact. Man is the measure of all things, a participant in the creation
of all things and thou art that. It is scientific materialism that reduces
humans to little more than automatons and Absolutism that denies
free will. The MOQ opposes both of these things. And both of
those things grow out of the very problem you are denying.
It's sad but true that the easiest way to avenge an idea that is alien to
one's persuasion is to attack the author. In this instance, I'm accused of
"slander" because I deny that acknowledging the individual subject is a
"problem". Yet we engage, converse, and collaborate with individuals as
cognizant subjects on a daily basis. Indeed, if we didn't believe other
people were subjects like us, human civilization would be impossible.
But, lo, a philosopher comes along with the "new idea" that subjects and
objects are an outmoded notion. All that really exists, he says, are
patterns of Quality. And this idea incites the philosopher's acolytes to
denounce Cartesian reality as "old-fashioned metaphysics". Plato had a
similar idea 2300 years ago, only he called these existents "Forms". Is it
the concept of a qualitative reality, or the terminology used to describe
it, that makes the MoQ approach to ontology "radical empiricism"?
dmb continues:
There is a distinction between theism and religion and that's true
regardless of what Pirsig says. Buddhism and Taoism are non-theistic
religions, for example. Philosophical mysticism is a non-theistic form
of religion too. The MOQ is compatible with non-theistic religions,
with non-theistic forms of mysticism. The Stanford Encyclopedia
has a substantial article on "Mysticism" so you certainly don't have
to take my word for it. A few sentences from the opening paragraphs
is enough to show this.
"Typically, mystics, theistic or not, see their mystical experience as part
of a larger undertaking aimed at human transformation and not as the
terminus of their efforts. Thus, in general, ‘mysticism’ would best be
thought of as a constellation of distinctive practices, discourses, texts,
institutions, traditions, and experiences aimed at human transformation,
variously defined in different traditions.
Under the influence of William James' The Varieties of Religious Experience,
heavily centered on people's conversion experiences, most philosophers'
interest in mysticism has been in distinctive, allegedly knowledge-granting
“mystical experiences.” Philosophers have focused on such topics as the
classification of mystical experiences, their nature in different religions
and mystical traditions, to what extent mystical experiences are conditioned
by a mystic's language and culture, and whether mystical experiences furnish
evidence for the truth of their contents."
OK, so despite the fact that Mr. Pirsig specifically labeled his philosophy
"atheistic", the MoQers are not "anti-theists" but "mystics". And, although
mystics may be "theistic or not", they "see mystical experience as part of a
"human transformation". I note that David describes mysticism as "a
constellation of distinctive practices, discourses, texts, institutions,
traditions, and experiences," all of which are products of social behavior,
giving no credit to the inspiration, intuitive insight, or intellection of
the individuals who created these products. As far as dmb is concerned,
what fuels mysticism is the collective "language and culture" of its people.
dmb concludes:
... you're not understanding my criticism, Ham. There is nothing
innovative about your essentialism. In this postmodern era,
that kind of metaphysics is dead. You're asserting modern ideas
and even some pre-modern views in a postmodern world. The
things you're saying have been said many times already in the
history of philosophy and the only scholars who still cling to such
things are the most conservative of theologians. They are considered
to be old fashioned and out of touch even among other theologians.
Law professor Phillip Johnston described the current plight of philosophy
quite accurately, I think, in his 1993 book First Things:
“Secularized intellectuals have long been complacent in their apostasy
because they were sure they weren't missing anything important in consigning
God to the ashcan of history. They were happy to replace the Creator with a
mindless evolutionary process that left humans free and responsible only to
themselves. They complacently assumed that when their own reasoning power
was removed from its grounding in the only ultimate reality, it could float,
unsupported, on nothing at all. As modernist rationalism gives way in
universities to its own natural child--postmodernist nihilism--modernists
are learning very slowly what a bargain they have made. It isn't a bargain
a society can live with indefinitely.”
That is an excerpt from an original essay I wrote a couple of years ago
titled "Philosophy is Dead". The complete essay is too long to post, but I
suggest you take the time to read it at
http://www.essentialism.net/philosophy_is_dead.htm. If nothing else, it
should give you a better understanding of how I look at religion, mysticism
and philosophy in terms of beliefs and meaning. Should you be so inclined,
I'd like your critique of this piece (at your convenience, of course).
Thanks for the interest, David,
Ham
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Ham said:
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.
dmb says:
I'm not calling for your removal and I don't think the MOQ is in any danger
because of your essentialism. I'm just saying that you've failed to
understand how wildly incompatible it is. I'm just saying that you don't
understand the MOQ or even the problem it addresses.
Ham said:
Your gratuitous comments about joining the Catholic church and selling magic
to scientists are too churlish to merit a serious response.
dmb says:
That was just an analogy, Ham. The Catholic church is related to atheism as
magic is related to science. The idea here is simply to characterize the
relation between the MOQ and your essentialism. If the MOQ sees SOM as the
problem to be solved and essentialism sees that same thing as the main
principle to be protected, then there are opposed to each other in a very
fundamental way. Do you really not understand this simple point? The
Catholics also want to protect the very thing that atheism opposes. Magical
thinking is approximately the opposite of scientific thinking. I'm not
really talking about churches or magic. I'm just about the RELATIONS between
those opposed views. I could simply say that Pirsig is trying to cool things
down and you're trying to heat them up but I'm not talking about
temperature. I'm talking about your opposition to the MOQ.
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
