ROGER FINALLY GETS TO GLENN'S POST AND ADDS A PS FOR DENIS Sorry it has taken me soooo long to respond to all the mail, I have been traveling a lot, and am way behind. GLENN WROTE: >You seem to be answering from the strict point of view of MOQ's first principles - >what's primal instead of what's derivative - what REALITY *really* is instead of >what we believe it to be. ROG: Yes. Exactly. I have been trying to make this distinction . I cannot understand why so many gloss over it. GLENN: Pirsig Quote #2 >When we speak of an external world guided by evolution it's normal to assume >that it is really there, is independent of us and is the cause of us. The MOQ >goes along with this assumption because experience has shown it to be an >xtremely high quality belief for our time. But unlike materialist >metaphysics, the MOQ does not forget that it is still just a belief - quite >different from beliefs in the past, from beliefs of other present cultures, >and possibly from beliefs we will all have in the future. What will decide >which belief prevails is, of course, its quality. >This is another illuminating quote. If you were trying to contrast the difference >between materialist metaphysics and MOQ, then your answer is appropriate. MOQ >treats the external world as real but not primal - it's still just a belief. >But oh what a belief! The belief in external objects is so powerful and universal >that it is elevated to the highest form of good: a truth of the mythos! Objects >are REAL, by popular demand. The votes of the culture are in, and the votes are >overwhelming: the EXTERNAL WORLD is REAL. The success of this belief is verified >and bolstered every day, making it very easy to forget belief as even necessary. >And the metaphysics (SOM) which proposed this way of thinking is also exalted as >true. By inference the split between subjective and objective is true, the current >prevailing mythos proclaims! It's as true now as it was before humans walked the >earth. In fact if we could point to an author of subject/object metaphysics, we'd >say she/he discovered a truth, albeit a metaphysical one, about the world. > And if you think 'concepts' cannot be considered real or true, especially in an > SOM mythos where 'substance' is king, consider Newton's Law of Gravity. Despite > what Pirsig personally believes, the vast majority of people in Western culture >today believe Newton discovered the Law of Gravity. That's why it's referred to as > a 'law' instead of a 'theory'. ROG: Yes, concepts are quite real. GLENN: >Now what if MOQ really caught on and supplanted SOM and became entrenched in the >mythos like SOM is now? Would patterns of quality from each of Pirsig's levels >seem, in the new mythos, as real as chairs and rocks do in the current mythos? >Yes. Would meta-concepts like Pirsig's levels even seem true and real? Yes. And >inally would the new mythos think that Pirsig discovered MOQ? Yes. >I hope this helps clarify both our positions. Am I seeing your position better >now? Are you seeing mine? Let me know. ROG: Yes, though you SEEM to be basing discovery on 'truth' . I am basing discovery/creation on 'Quality'. Based on Quality there is no final TRUE answer. There are only better answers. Each of which needs to be true. A thousand years from now I hope the MOQ and gravity have all been replaced a dozen times by better theories. Each 'created' and judged by QUALITY or Direct Experience. Do you see the difference? Am I misrepresenting your view? Sorry if so....please help me understand.... Roger PS -- Denis, the MOQ doesn't deny truth any more than it denies substance or concepts. ( I believe I am cross posting, but it is only because I am not addressing the MF'ing topic, just this one issue.) Truth in the MOQ is locally consistent intellectual patterns of quality. (Even here Glenn, I do not deny truth, I just place it as a subset of the good.) MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
