Arlo and innocent bystanders --
On Mon, 9/19/11 at 11:54 AM, Arlo Bensinger <[email protected]> quoted a series
of statements posted by Ham, concluding with a facetious proposal to do
further research:
[Arlo]
In fairness, I've tried to find parts where you saying anything supportive
of Pirsig's MOQ. I can go back further, if you wish.
He who looks for trouble will find it. The quotes you painstakingly copied
and pasted were apparently for your own benefit, as they've elicited no
complaints from other posters here. Yes, they are my criticisms of the
Quality thesis as generally interpreted, and I stand by them, although
quoted out of context they have little if any meaning to the casual reader.
Feel free to explore the archives for additional Ham comments, if this is
what gets your rocks off. You may even learn something worthwhile in the
process. However, if your idea of "fairness" is based on a balance of
positive vs. negative comments, I plead 'nolo contendere', since there would
be no point in addressing those tenets which are universally understood and
accepted.
Cheers, and thanks for the free publicity.
--Ham
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
[Ham]
In this way you, Arlo, and others may see that I am not here to condemn
the MoQ, nor am I "totally antagonistic" toward Pirsig's tenets.
[Ham later in same post]
This is, in fact, the fundamental fundamental premise of Essentialism.
Unfortunately, it is missing (possibly hidden?) in Pirsig's exposition.
[Ham moving backwards in the archives]
I have never understood why Pirsig settled for Quality over Value as his
fundamental reality, especially having outlined the nature of Value in his
SODV paper. Of course, I maintain that neither term can be fundamental
Perfectly comprehensible, right?
By making reality "indefinable" Pirsig's template essentially ignores
metaphysics, which is why the MoQ is not a metaphysical thesis in the
classical sense. What he has constructed is a euphemistic paradigm
("figures of speech", as Steve would say) for evolutionary existence.
Doesn't this make more sense than trying to fathom what "following DQ"
really means?
I'm confused enough that Pirsig has ascribed "dynamic" to the ultimate
Reality (which is unjustified IMO) while defining a world in constant flux
as "static patterns". In addition to interpreting the temporal process of
evolution as "levels", we are required to classify all experience as
either "definable" or "indefinable". Now you add "intentional" and "real"
to this list of experiential qualifiers. Is there no end to the MoQ's
complexity?
I view the MoQ as neither physics nor metaphysics but as a euphemistic
paradigm of differentiated existence.
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.
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.
Only by acknowledging the free self can the MoQ survive as a viable and
comprehensible philosophy.
Mr. Prisig would like us to believe it's Quality. He elevates DQ to the
supreme level and reduces everything else to a static pattern of Quality
and -- Eureka! -- he's got a metaphysics. But metaphysics is more than a
euphemistic paradigm. And "pattern" is only a convenient fudge-word that
avoids having to posit a workable thesis.
As Marsha would put it: it's all analogy and reified conventionalism. In
other words, why ruin the fantasy by struggling to define it? This may
not accurately express RMP's metaphysics, but it certainly reflects his
poetic spirit IMO.
Also, as many times as this has been quoted, can I be the only one who
sees the absurdity of this statement?
"To the extent that one's behavior is controlled by static patterns of
quality it is without choice. But to the extent that one follows Dynamic
Quality, which is undefinable, one's behavior is free."
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.
You are perpetrating a fallacy conjured up by Pirsig.
Pirsig allegedly got his inspiration for the MoQ from Zen Buddhism. But
when he and Marsha (who also studies Orientalism) conclude that there is
no self, I begin to despair that there is any hope left for Western
Philosophy.
[Arlo]
This only goes back to June, and I left out larger passages.
In fairness, I've tried to find parts where you saying anything supportive
of Pirsig's MOQ. I can go back further, if you wish.
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
