Hi Ron, [Ron previously] Isnipped that comment like this because I feel it reveals the general meaning of what you are trying to say.
The term "anti-theistic" is a deliberately proking term. I think it's a proking term to those who hold certain beliefs. Questioning your values is often very provokative. [Mark] I do understand what Quality is trying to do, honestly. I arrived at such an interpretation before Lila came out. Lila is an attempt at a structured approach, which is why there is so much confusion. As suggested in ZMM, there is a perceived allocation of Truth being a divine interpretation in Western thought. Quality proposes an alternative. I am also aware of the pitfalls of the Church of Reason. Being a scientist, I can see those most clearly. I have no faith in Scientism, but see it as a structure that is built with the human mind. If MOQ is attempting to subscribe at some Truth of its own, then it will also fall prey to the notion of an Absolute. [Ron previously] Rationalism seems to want to call it something it seeks unity. while the empriricists seeks the plural, the many in explanations. The MoQist would discuss what makes one better than the other [Mark] The shift from true to better also implies a Truth of some kind. It is difficult to get away from this in any interpretation. To say that some things are better than others is also creating a truth. The shift in paradigm offered by MOQ requires an assortment of paths. If it were required to destroy one's mind, as happened to Phadreus (which is, as the author states a factual story), then most would not achieve such an interpretation. It is well recognized that Phaedrus (Pirsig) subscribed to destructive methods, such a thing is related in ZMM. As a wolf, he was on the attack. Any final interpretation of Quality must be arrived at personally and not as some philosophical result. By introducing the term anti-theist this is typical of the tactics of a wolf. A wolf that found himself all alone. [Ron previously] That statement leads me to believe that you are taking a materialists point of view. Empirical, from my own understanding, is explanation predicated on experience. Typically, attributing experience to any one thing in particular, is a rationalist arguement, they seek to explain the flux of experience with unity, one. there is a difference an important one, it's an old arguement. Socrates, Aristotle, James all have written about it and it often is considered the central theme of philosophy [Mark] I am far from a materialist view, but your post would suggest that you are not. While not being theistic, one cannot help but realize that such a thing is not materialistic. The approach to unity is as old as human reasoning. This is a product of the human mind. To dismiss this as an argument would dismiss human capability for such a thing. If we attribute experience to Quality, this is no different. I understand the need to make MOQ somehow different, perhaps irrational. Let me say that this method, while attractive, will not provide much following. I am not a believer in God, per se, but to distinguish Quality as something different requires a jump of some kind. The appropriate platform for such a jump must be constructed. One cannot subscribe to something intuitive without methods. To provide meaning to Quality, analogies are required. The use of anti-analogies is not a useful method. > [Ron previously] > Snipped again to streamline, since experience is the startingpoint it's > both > between and with. > [Mark] Experience is translated for the creation of shared experience. No two experiences can be demonstrated to be the same. The value of experience can only be agreed on in a rational way if philosophy is needed. There is certainly a preponderance of experience that is shared in non-verbal and even in ways beyond measurement, at least for now. Agreement with is very different from agreement between. > > [Ron previously] > What exactly is MoQ saying is true? that it is better to inquire? > MoQ is basically a reminder to scientists, exposing the root > meaning , rexamination of it's aims. > [Mark] Exactly. MOQ is presented more as what is not true. There is no root to meaning, it is something we create. Meaning does not exist outside the human mind. MOQ as meaningful is a personal interpretation, its aims are personal. I am reminding scientists all the time about the drawbacks of misinterpreting what we create as being absolute. Any theory or scientific truth has no meaning outside our agreement. It is a cohesive force is in the beehive of humanity. MOQ can easily turn on itself and create its own paradox. This comes from ascribing truth to it, rather than suggestion. > > [Ron previously] > Understand, once Quality is objectified, worshipped and taken for > holy writ, as the one true guide, it becomes rationalistic, it seeks to > explain life in terms of one unity., Pirsig is saying in so many words > that MoQ is not Rationalistic. > > It boils down to the prefference between terms "God" as the most basic > general expression of experience or "Quality". > [Mark] Yes, this is at the core of many new age interpretations. To claim that it is different from theism is to miss the point of theism. One cannot objectify the premise of theism as many seem to try to do. To be anti-theist is as much nonsense as being anti-MOQ. [Ron previously] > God, as said before requires a radical shift in meaning whereas "Quality" > meets the needs of economic explanation. Everyone knows quality. > everyone knows betterness. > > The point being, that if it works for you to associate God with Quality > and it may be viewd in this way without having all the static baggage > associated with the term, then thats a metaphysics of Quality for you. > But > Understand that its not Robert Pirsigs metaphysics of quality. > [Mark] It would seem to me here, Ron, that you do not have a good interpretations of MOQ. If it relies entirely on a personal interpretation of betterness, then there is nothing to write about. If economy is the purpose, then theism trumps MOQ anytime. > > [Ron previously] Understand then, anti-theistic comes to be linked with anti rationalism. > and it's that rationalist value, that is provoking the difference of > opinion. > It does throw up intuitive problems for someone who favors rationalistic > explanations. > [Mark] Yes, exactly, which is why Lila may not work as a philosophy. It would appear that you agree with me on that one. Thanks for the discussion, Mark > > > > 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
