dmb, I don't see any contradiction anywhere. And since you could not address the specifics of your complaints, I have no way to relate to them. You seem to come to conclusion that no way relate to my understanding. I'll leave it that.
Marsha On Sep 11, 2013, at 10:14 AM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: > > Marsha said to dmb, > > > If I am to address your complaint I will need a little more information. > Please specify your exact complaint with each statement. And please explain > to which of the statements each quote that you've provided applies, and > exactly how it specifically justifies your compliant. > > 1. I accept the MoQ's idea that the world is nothing but value. > > 2. From a Dynamic Quality (unpatterened) view nothing is right or wrong, > better or worse. > > 3. From the static (patterned) view a pattern exist because it is useful. > > 4. I also accept that on the static (conventional) level *individual > judgements* of what's bad or good may differ because of different static > pattern histories and differences in the present dynamic conditions. > > > dmb says: > > The point is already so clear that I expect this to be yet another Lucy > moment, i.e. you're asking a question but you'll certainly dismiss or > disregard the answer for no discernible reason. > > Claim #1 is contradicted by claim #2 & #3. (Claim #1 is right and the > contradictory claims (2&3) are wrong.) > Claim #2 describes the relativism of SOM, not the MOQ. > Claim #3 describes the world of SOM, as merely functional and valueless. The > MOQ says that a thing which has no value does not exist. We are suspended in > these static values, we ARE these patterns and the felt harmony between them > is an indispensable part of their value. > Thus you are confusing the MOQ's solutions with the problems of SOM, namely > relativism and nihilism. > > Claim #4 doesn't exactly contradict the idea that the world is nothing but > value but it construes these values as subjective. This is another SOM trap > which you've fallen into and it's not just a coincidence that you repeatedly > disregard the MOQ's criteria for truth and dismiss reasons, arguments and > textual evidence as JUST somebody's opinion, i.e. just subjective. Again, the > MOQ is confused with its enemy. > > If the world is nothing but value, as the MOQ says, then EVERYTHING is right > or wrong, better or worse. You have said the opposite and are wrong is saying > so. Even the front edge of DQ itself is value, is good or bad even if you > can't say why until later, as in the hot stove example. > > There is no shortage of evidence to support this criticism. You can't paint > the MOQ as anti-intellectual relativism or indifferent nihilism. If you want > to maintain such a morally bankrupt perspective for yourself, go right ahead. > But you cannot rightly hang that around Pirsig's neck. It makes no sense and > it slanders the MOQ > > > "From the perspective of subject-object science, the world is a completely > purposeless, valueless place. There is no point to anything. Nothing is right > and nothing is wrong. Everything is just functions, like machinery. There is > nothing morally wrong with being lazy, nothing morally wrong with lying, with > theft, with suicide, with murder, with genocide. There is nothing morally > wrong because there are no morals, just functions." (277-8) > > "A scientific, intellectual culture had become a culture of millions of > isolated people living and dying in little cells of psychic solitary > confinement, unable to talk to one another, really, and unable to judge one > another because scientifically speaking it is impossible to do so. ..He could > invent moral goals for himself, but they are just artificial inventions. > Scientifically speaking he has no goals." (283) > > > > "...the Metaphysics of Quality concludes that the old Puritan & Victorian > social codes should not be followed [or attacked] blindly … They should be > dusted off and re-examined, fairly and impartially, to see what they were > trying to accomplish and actually did accomplish towards building a stronger > society. ...These moral bads and goods are not just ‘customs’. They are as > real as rocks and trees." > > > > "In a subject-object understanding of the world these terms have no meaning. > There is no such thing as "human rights." There is no such thing as moral > reasonableness. There are subjects and objects and nothing else.This soup of > sentiments about logically nonexistent entities can be straightened out by > the Metaphysics of Quality. It says that what is meant by "human rights" is > usually the moral code of intellect-vs. -society, the moral right of > intellect to be free of social control... According to the Metaphysics of > Quality these "human rights" have not just a sentimental basis, but a > rational, metaphysical basis. They are essential to the evolution of a higher > level of life from a lower level of life. They are for real." (307) > > > > How can you square your view with Pirsig's text? Crowbars and dynamite, > perhaps? > > > 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
