Francisco, Your question caught my attention because it was raised by my friend Steve, the other day, who used to belong to MD. He wanted to know if MD ever talked about practical applications of the MoQ. I didn't know what to tell him either. Pirsig said that the way to change the world for the better is to change your mind for the better, and I think he's got it right. But it's trickier than it looks because sometimes in order to change your mind, you have to change the world.
John On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 2:35 AM, Francisco Albano <[email protected]>wrote: > Dear All: > So, is moq_discuss now open to commenting on social values and systems in > the light of MoQ, DQ-SQ? What can be said about feudalism, capitalism, > socialism? Not to mention human rights, religion and religious > institutions? I'd like to know how Pirsigians are putting MoQ into > practice, making it relevant to life. What is its relevance to personal > renewal/remolding and social transformation towards high quality living in > this era of capitalist globalization? > > Paco > > "El Senor te bendiga y te guarde; > el Senor te mire con agrado y te extienda su amor; > el Senor te muestre su favor y te conceda la paz." > (Numeros 6:24-26) > > > > On Monday, March 3, 2014 10:23 AM, Dan Glover <[email protected]> > wrote: > > ----- Forwarded Message ----- > > > [email protected] is not on your Guest List | Approve sender | > Approve domain > Dave > > On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 10:47 AM, david <[email protected]> wrote: > > There is an interesting article about human rights and the limits of > materialism linked below. I think some of Dworkin's ideas are similar to > Pirsig's and he had very impressive credentials as a legal philosopher. As > you'll see in the article, he did well at Harvard, was a Rhodes Scholar at > Oxford, did Harvard Law School, was a professor at Yale, Oxford, New York > University and University College London. He finished "Religion Without > God", his last book, about a year ago - just before he died. > > Dan: > Thank you so much for the book recommendation. It fits in well with > what I've been working on lately and it also reminds me a bit of some > of Freud's work, especially these essays (and you gotta love the cover > art): > > > http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004OR1TUU/ref=oh_d__o01_details_o01__i00?ie=UTF8&psc=1 > > Freud claimed there are three great thought systems at work in the > world: animism, religion, and science. Animism came first and is the > most encompassing. Even today our mythos has its roots there. Religion > arose from animism, or rather, as Freud put it, animism provided the > necessary prerequisites for religion. These three thought systems > appear similar to the four levels of the MOQ in that they are discrete > and yet continuous. > > >dmb: > > I was thinking about the human rights aspect of the MOQ as I read about > Dworkin's work.... > > > > Pirsig describes the history of the 20th century as an extended conflict > between "programs for intellectual control over society" and reactionary > forces with "a program for the social control of intellect." This history, > according to the MOQ, "is explained by a conflict of levels of evolution." > > > > This conflict between levels is not a conflict between society and the > individual (As John and other conservatives have suggested). It is a > conflict between two kinds of society. Just as an individual can be > dominated by social values (Richard Rigel). a whole society can be > dominated by social values (Victorians, neoVictorians, fascists). The same > idea applies to intellectual values; a person or a whole society can be > dominated by intellectual values. Pirsig points to human rights as a prime > example of the intellectual values that should be in charge or the whole > society. Like the other "programs for intellectual control over society," > these rights are very much about the values which are supposed to guide > whole governments and nations. And so, according to the MOQ, "a culture > that supports the dominance of intellectual values over social values is > absolutely superior to one that does not." > > > > > > "...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. Freedom of speech; > freedom of assembly, of travel; trial by jury; habeas corpus; government by > consent--these "human rights" are all intellect-vs-society issues. > 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." > > > > > > Check it out; this guy is saying something very similar to Pirsig, at > least on this topic. > > Dan: > Yes, I agree. Lots of similarities so far as human rights. > > >dmb: > > > http://www.thenation.com/article/178330/beyond-naturalism-ronald-dworkin?page=full# > > > > "Dworkin still wants to call his attitude "religious" because, although > he does not believe in the existence of God, he "accepts the full, > independent reality of value" and hence rejects the naturalistic view that > nothing is real except what is revealed by the natural sciences or > psychology." > > > > Ronald Dworkin's 1977 book, Taking Rights Seriously, "established him as > one of the essential figures, along with Robert Nozick and John Rawls, in > the modern revival of liberal political philosophy". > > "Any account of the law must of course include rights, indispensable > elements of the complex network of permissions, claims, duties, warrants > and exemptions by which laws knit individual actors together into political > communities. But do rights have their existence only because of the > existence of formal, enacted law? This is not what Dworkin thinks; things > go in the other direction, he argues. For Dworkin, rights are fundamental > and give the law its moral framework. Indeed, he claimed (though for most > people unpersuasively) that they give the law its very identity as law. > Rights, he says in a typically vivid phrase, are 'trumps'." > > Thanks again, Dave. I ordered the Kindle version of Religion Without > God and I'll be reading it tonight. > > Dan > > http://www.danglover.com > 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 > 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
