Hello Ham,
If you are suggesting that the MoQ is ontologically indeterminate, and
epistemologically relative with guidance offered based on the highest,
prevailing intellectual patterns of the day (evolution), I will agree. I
certainly do no view this as a problem. I suspect that you cannot offer
justification for your Essentialism that is empirically or philosophically
stronger. Can you?
Marsha
On Sep 1, 2011, at 1:55 AM, Ham Priday wrote:
>
> Hi David (with amenities to Steve)--
>
>
>> dmb says:
>> Yes, I definitely think that Pirsig's comments about "one's behavior"
>> are comments about the actions of the self. But the MOQ does not
>> construe [that] our moral agency [is] essentially rational [nor] does it
>> construe the self as autonomous or proprietary. As Dan rightly
>> points out, the MOQ's self is not independent of the context in which
>> he or she exists. Like James and Dewey, Pirsig rejects the notion
>> that we are fundamentally different from the world from which we
>> emerged. We are part of the ongoing process of evolution.
>
> If you will allow me to describe the agency of selfness as I view it, rather
> than as the MoQ construes it, I think it may have more meaning within the
> context you have outlined.
>
> First of all, selfness is proprietary because the individual subject is the
> "owner" or possessor of his/her conscious mind. To discuss the Self in terms
> of "one's behavior" is too restrictive and can be misleading. Actions
> (behavior) are an objective manifestation of an individual's response to a
> situation. We cannot get inside another's Self to learn what prompted a
> particular response, so we judge a person by the actions observed. If they
> are rational, harmless, and conform to what is "conventional' by society's
> standards, we call them moral.
>
> I have no problem with the fact that the Self is dependent on the context
> ("structure") of existence. However, that structure is in large part a
> creation of the Self; so the relation of Self to Otherness is actually a
> co-dependency. Also, when you deny that "we are fundamentally different from
> the world from which we emerged," what is your referent for "we"? If it's
> the physical organism that we identify and relate to objectively as a fellow
> human being, then I can't quarrel with your assertion. On the other hand,
> with due respect to James, Dewey, and Pirsig, there is no empirical or
> philosophical justification for claiming that the subjective Self is a
> product of biological evolution.
>
>> What I have emphatically denied are the various positions that Steve
>> has falsely assigned to me - and there have been many of these false
>> attributions. At various points, he has wrongly construed me as
>> advocating pre-destination, the existence of divine souls, moral
>> agency as essentially rational in nature (Plato, Kant, etc.) and the
>> Cartesian self, just to name a few. Steve, on the other hand, simply
>> denies that there is any moral agency in the MOQ. For Steve,
>> apparently, freedom consists in knee-jerk reactions like jumping
>> off a hot stove or single-celled organism moving away from sulfuric
>> acid. He thinks the MOQ has nothing to say about moral responsibility
>> and he follows Sam Harris in thinking that people are as morally
>> culpable as tornados. I think that Steve's position is completely
>> ridiculous. Like I keep trying to explain to him, it's logically incoherent
>> and he has to misuse all the central terms in order to maintain this
>> nonsense. It seems me that he has a real hard time "interpreting"
>> dictionaries and encyclopedia entries, not to mention the MOQ,
>> about which he is not even in the ballpark. If I seem too emphatic,
>> it's probably just a result of the frustration that comes from dealing
>> with such an incorrigible "thinker".
>
> I would suggest that Steve's "frustration" is a result of having to deal with
> a "logically incoherent" philosophy. His statements are certainly not
> intended as a personal vendetta, and his conclusions are no more confused
> than anyone else who attempts to configure his epistemology to Mr. Pirsig's
> evolutionary paradigm.
> The "hot stove" was Pirsig's ill-famed analogy for "the Quality experience",
> as was the unfortunate application of "value decisions" to inanimate objects.
> If everything --including the self--is tied to evolution (i.e., natural
> process) it follows that 1) life is predestined, and 2) fundamental Reality
> is undetermined. I submit that Dynamic in this context is a fancy word for
> "unstable", and that the author failed to posit a "first cause" or primary
> (uncreated) source for existence.
>
> In my opinion, the MoQ is incomplete as a metaphysical theory, and the
> hierarchical levels of evolution do not account for the emergence of
> proprietary awareness which is necessary for the realization of Value. I'm
> well aware that these are serious charges, but it's clear to me that the
> Quality thesis in its present form falls short of providing a meaning for
> cognizant life and is an inadequate guide to human morality.
>
> So now, Dave, you can either add me to your list of "incorrigible thinkers"
> or find some positive value in my criticism that merits your attention. In
> any case, as one who respects your dialectical skills and logical mind, I
> appreciate this response to my recent post.
>
> 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
___
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
