Greetings, John --
Nihilism is for Nincompoops! 'nother good one. they're just
raining down in MD today. Thanks Ham.
Thanks, John, and you're most welcome. Now if only I could persuade you
that your worldview is nihilistic, we might be getting somewhere.
[Ham, previously]:
As you must be aware by now, I have problems with much of the
MOQ terminology.
[John]:
Yes! Or mine. Or Royce or James or anybody I've met.
You seem to be pretty stuck in your own terms. Hmmm...
wonder if that's any sort of problem?
If "stuck in my own terms" means that I am expressing my convictions as best
I can, you are right.
The way I see it, this is a problem for you, not me.
[Ham]:
The author's metaphors and euphemisms don't help me understand
Pirsig's reality any more than my own.
[John]:
that's because, Ham, you have to step outside of your own reality in order
to get perspective on it. You can't understand your own reality, unless
you
view it from somebody else's. And it seems to me that you're trying to do
it the other way around, understand your own reality first, and then use
that to analyze the other's. Won't work. Fundamentally problematic, is
my
opinion.
Well, then I suppose I'm looking to you folks for the perspective you say I
need -- not to "understand my reality" (for I already do), but to understand
the common objections raised against it. There would be no point in
argument and persuasion if I had no reality of my own to impart to others.
Unfortunately, the "others" tend to be intractably biased in a Pirsigian
direction, and I am viewed as a renegade, which is why such dialogue doesn't
work here. This needn't be "fundamentally problematic", however; and it
isn't when people are open to alternative views. I see you as potentially
such a person, John, along with Mark and Joe.
But sometimes you can catch glimpses of a transcendant harmony
coming from different terms and "realities". Since there is that which is
common to the other, we assume this as some sort of "super-reality"
or truer picture, and I believe that is the best analogy for DQ as I can
come up with right now.
Yes, it's the common chord I guess we're all striving for. Finding such
harmony of thought is a rarity on the MD, but I do spot it occasionally and
it does broaden my perspective. I think we should exercise caution where
such consensus is found, however, lest we be deceived by our own exhubrance
as to the Truth it reveals.
[Ham, responding to Marsha]:
But what does it gain us intellectually to simply call existence a
"convention"?
[John]:
It frees us to realize we are making a choice. There is not any "truth"
that is thrust upon us and forced down our throats, because in the end
they
are all conventions, and thus, all choices. Intellectually, that is very,
very freeing because it opens up the boundaries to thought and inquiry
infinitely.
Here I disagree. No one is--or should be--thrusting a truth or principle
down our throat. But "conventionality" is even more sinister. For it
implies that nothing is real or true, that we live in a fantasy world of our
own making. This is the nihilistic "cloud of unreality" that I alluded to
before, and it hangs over the MoQ like flies over a cadaver.
Nihilism is absurd. Undoubtedly. But there is a big difference between
nothing and infinity Ham. A pluralisim of conventions is the opposite of
no
convention. We conceptualize infinity through a pluralism of numbers, so
too do we conceptualize an indefinable harmony that we strive for, without
being able to pin any particular conventional viewpoint as THEE one. And
yeah, the fact that this viewpoint I offer you isn't THEE viewpoint either
could be viewed as a problem. But... I hope you understand why I think
(from my viewpoint) that it isn't.
"Infinity" is a numerical symbol of absolute magnitude, and "nothing" is its
antithesis. So, of course, all difference lies between them. These are
conventions (euphemisms) by which we humans acknowledge the ineffable or
indefinable aspects of our reality. But they are not Reality itself; in
fact, neither Infinity nor Nothingness exists.
The notion that Quality alone is real is Pirsig's "convention". And whether
we call it Virtue, Goodness, or Arête, it's as much of a myth as anything
concocted by the supernaturalists. Value is the affinity of the free agent
for its Source. Without a fundamental source there can be no sensible
agent, let alone the realization of Value.
This is the premise of Essentialism, John. And, as much as I'd like to
accommodate it to Qualityism, the fact that Quality is not a primary source
makes this a logical impossibility. That's the dilemma I confront in this
forum. The "problem" I have with the MoQ is indeed "fundamental"; it is the
fundament that Quality lacks.
"What do I see when I turn on the lights?
I can tell you, but you don't believe me"
Essentially speaking,
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
