Hello David,
"Unlike subject-object metaphysics the Metaphysics of Quality does not insist
on a single exclusive truth. If subjects and objects are held to be the
ultimate reality then we're permitted only one construction of things - that
which corresponds to the 'objective' world - and all other constructions are
unreal. But if Quality or excellence is seen as the ultimate reality then it
becomes possible for more than one set of truths to exist. Then one doesn't
seek the absolute Truth.' One seeks instead the highest quality intellectual
explanation of things with the knowledge that if the past is any guide to the
future this explanation must be taken provisionally; as useful until something
better comes along. One can then examine intellectual realities the same way
one examines paintings in an art gallery, not with an effort to find out which
one is the 'real' painting, but simply to enjoy and keep those that are of
value. There are many sets of intellectual reality in existence and we can
perceive some to have more quality than others, but that we do so is, in part,
the result of our history and current patterns of values."
(LILA)
And why I consider your opinions, as well as mine, hypothetical (supposed but
not neccesarily real or true.)
Marsha
On Aug 18, 2012, at 12:28 AM, David Harding <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> There are good mystics and there are bad mystics. A mystic, by definition, is
> someone who doesn't like definitions. If you were to ask a mystic if they
> were one, they'd deny it. They especially would not like the value judgement
> of 'good' and 'bad'. In Lila, Pirsig stressed the importance of Dynamic
> Quality. He calls Dynamic Quality the "source of all things" and speaks to
> how fundamental it is in the universe. Dynamic Quality is all that mystics
> are interested in. A mystic values non-definition and that is what Dynamic
> Quality is. Dynamic Quality is a non-definition.
>
> Now if that's all there was to the MOQ, then it would be easy to say that the
> MOQ supports mysticism. In fact, it's easy to take these parts of the MOQ
> and claim that it supports mysticism. Many here, myself included, argue that
> the MOQ is fundamentally mystic. But how far one takes this mysticism is all
> about how good a mystic you are…
>
> In Lila, Pirsig identifies two main opponents of the MOQ and one of those
> opponents is a mystic..
>
> "It has two kinds of opponents. The first are the philosophers of science,
> most particularly the group known as logical positivists.. The second group
> of opponents are the mystics."
>
> Now how can the MOQ claim to support mysticism on the one hand and yet call a
> mystic a main opponent on the other? The reason being is that there are good
> mystics and there are bad mystics.
>
> At the start of Lila Pirsig identifies a bad mystic as someone who fails to
> recognise that they are polluting the world with the metaphysical truths of
> their existence..
>
> "The only person who doesn't pollute the mystic reality of the world with
> fixed metaphysical meanings is a person who hasn't yet been born — and to
> whose birth no thought has been given. The rest of us have to settle for
> being something less pure. Getting drunk and picking up bar-ladies and
> writing metaphysics is a part of life."
>
> A good mystic on the other hand is someone who recognises that metaphysical
> truths, whilst are not fundamental, are still as important as they always
> were. This is highlighted by Pirsig in the last two sentences of the book
> where he writes..
>
> "Good as a noun rather than an adjective is all the Metaphysics of Quality is
> about. Of course, the ultimate Quality isn't a noun or an adjective or
> anything else definable, but if you had to reduce the whole Metaphysics of
> Quality to a single sentence, that would be it."
>
> This is why, with the MOQ, we can make claims about what a good mystic, or
> indeed a good anything, is. The MOQ recognises that whilst the fundamental
> nature of the universe is indeed undefined, we are alive and are always
> polluting the world with the metaphysical truths of our existence. And so
> what the MOQ points towards is that because we are polluting in this way, we
> should find and create the best truths we can.
>
> So, to reiterate, a bad mystic is one who denies that they pollute the world
> with the karma of metaphysical truths and thus claims that even these truths
> are not important. Alternatively, a good mystic knows intimately that they
> pollute the world with the karma of metaphysical truths and that these truths
> and karma are *not* Dynamic Quality.
>
> I hope that some mystics on here begin to recognise the bad karma which they
> are creating so that they can become both better mystics and better people
> too.
>
> -David.
> 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
