ROGER RESPONDS TO BOTH STRUAN AND THEO ON WEAKNESSES IN THE MOQ STRUAN/THEO I have watched with interest the debate that has emerged from some of my old postings. In particular, Roger quotes my, 'alter ego,' one Theo Schramm, who was invented by myself to remove the cultural blinkers from certain people who read, 'Struan,' and immediately let rip regardless of how stupid their refutations were. ROGER: Dan and (I think) Bo had mentioned to me that you too were the same person, but to be honest, I was never sure until now. When you (Struan) originally entered the squad you really raised a ruckus. Some of the responses to your arguments were absolutely hillarious. When you re-emerged in late 1998 it was just as odd. I still suspect a few people left this forum to escape your arguments. I can see why you did it. However, in re-reading all the Theo posts that I have saved (I only save good ones), it appears that you either found a lot of value in the MOQ, or you tried real hard to. Which, may I ask, was it? Please tell me some of Theo still exists! STRUAN/ THEO: It was astonishing how many people agreed with me when they didn't realise it was me and I have to say that I almost convinced myself ... ROGER: They were basically agreeing with Diana's attempted summation and your addition of Hugo's 'tacit assumption'. You also added Horse's 'A not A ' fuzzy logic argument and a few choice jems of your own........ THEO/STRUAN: I say, 'almost convinced myself,' but the formulation was constructed only to make sure that I understood where others were coming from. Having confirmed that I did (understand), I then knew that it was a 'strawman.' The idea of 'irreconcilable tension,' stood out (along with the 'perception' bit and the 'vying for dominance') as the main point of nonsense in that statement. Nobody sees an 'irreconcilable tension' here - well apart from those who are totally off their rockers like Bo who thinks, for example, that every scientist who studies the problem believes that every behavioural pattern is due to nature or, alternatively, that every behavioural pattern is due to nurture with no in between. This is so far removed from the reality of the situation that one can only laugh. Scientists, and sensible philosophers, are much more pragmatic than that, (Whitehead for example Roger), and would never fit into such a simplistic and crass definition. I do like the ironic situation that someone who sees SOM as a literary device with no basis in reality, synthesises a definition accepted by many who think it is not just accurate but a fair description of the overwhelming majority of Western philosophy and science since Greek times. ROGER: So what was your reason for participating in the 45 day topic discussion? You stayed in character with great posts that contributed to the flow on this topic AND on the marathon 2 month topic that followed. Heck, you even accused Jonathan of being too subjective. In fact I think you wrote something remotely similar to the following to him: "And you are, by your own admission, proposing a variant of SOM. You are relying upon an observer and an observed for Quality (meaning as you see it) to exist. But SOM isn't MOQ. Quality IS prior to subjects and objects -- that's why its a metaphysics in its own right and not a branch of SOM." Did you believe what you wrote as Theo? Which of you is real, Struan or Theo? Or a bit of both? They are both more than welcome here as far as I am concerned (I too have been known to argue with two contradictory voices), but it might help if you let us know which one we are talkin' to. ( To be honest, we need a Struan more than a Theo though.) Now, on to a few of your arguments. You criticised the MOQ's free will explanation, its value as an ethical tool, its originality, its characterization of SOM and its name. 1) FREE WILL: I agree with the critique. Pirsig butchered this one. However, I do believe the MOQ solves the issue, as do many Eastern and perhaps several Western philosophies. Pirsig just messed this one up though. I have explained my take on the issue previously and can do it again if anyone is interested. 2) ETHICS: I believe the MOQ is a very valuable approach that can be used to evaluate moral issues. As the recent debate on morals showed, the MOQ is not good at canned answers. The disagreements between members on some supposedly simple moral issues were laughable. David B. and Ken I can argue and rationalize all day long on WWII and never agree about Hiroshima. Pirsig should be criticized for his overly simplistic 4 level prescription to ethical dilemmas. However, in the later chapters he does clean things up by rejecting intellectual rationalizations too. He explains that the good is determined by pragmatic everyday experience -- by DQ. In the end of Chapter 29 and the entire last part of the book, Pirsig offers an approach beyond the rationalizations of the simple levels. The answer isn't more complexity, it is to continuously reevaluate new approaches to problems using the framework of the hierarchy of quality. It is to face each moment with a fresh, uncluttered mind. DQ supercedes sq, even intellectual sq. ...."this good is not a social code or some intellectualized Hegelian absolute. It is direct everyday experience." Platt and several other members came out of the discussion with a similar opinion to this one. Those that still think the 4 levels are like some kind of 4 Commandments can defend them on their own though, because I think they are both confused and blind to the central message of the entire metaphysics. Pirsig shares some of the blame though by not being more forceful in his explanation on the limits of his own metaphysics. In his defense though, I can find a dozen or so specific warnings in Lila of the inherent limitations of rationalizing, metaphysics, intellectualising, and even of using the MOQ. 3) ORIGINALITY: This is my one word phrase for your various arguments that most issues in the MOQ have already been solved elsewhere. Again, you are correct. I have found very few original ideas in Lila. In fact that is what appealed to me so much. The MOQ took the world as I understood it from years of reading science and philosophy and religion and sociology and it wove the elements together in a comprehensive way that was illuminating to the entirity. I have since found other philosophers that have made similar attempts with similar solutions, but I found none as brilliant and clarifying as the MOQ. Its value to me is indeed pragmatic. 4) SOM STRAWMAN: For once, I am in complete disagreement with you here. As I said earlier, I read as much as the next guy. I also know my share of bright people and how they think. I see people and I read western philosophers and scientists and journalists that are hopelessly mired in objective views of reality. They cannot see the world as one of relations. Even the quantum and relativity physicists that I read can't see the entirity of the forest for the trees. I could back this up with a virtually unlimited supply of examples, but what would be the point? I think that you are correct though that the SOM views are long since refuted. The problem is that the century that refuted them also was the century that refused to acknowledge metaphysics as a valued field at all. With the rejection of Newton and Descartes, they refused to replace with Liebniz or Whitehead or James. They threw out metaphysics rather than just the metaphysicians. In the process, the logical positivists tossed out their beliefs in the value of philosophy, but not their tacit philosophical assumptions. Conventional wisdom is hence a mess of jumbled patterns of thought that don't mesh together as a comprehensive whole. The MOQ is long overdue. 5) QUALITY VS FACTOR X: I earlier agreed with Jon that we could replace the term quality with 'X.' "Of course you can, if it is a better definition..... if it is more true to experience .... if it is simpler and more concise .... if it is less confusing and inconclusive ... if it is more elegant and connected to other beliefs and experiences....IN OTHER WORDS, "X" IS BETTER THAN "QUALITY" ONLY IF IT IS OF BETTER QUALITY. I think I will stick with 'Quality.' " STRUAN/THEO RESPONDED: Pure sophism. ROGER: Pure is the best kind I take it? STRUAN/THEO: .....At first sight I might give in and concede that quality is a better name because it has more quality..... but, being slightly more canny than that, I realise that this is purely a linguistic trick as I hope this analogy will make clear to the reader. X is perfectly sufficient, more concise, less confusing and very elegant. It totally accords with my experience and, more importantly, if 'dq' is indefinable (as Pirsig claims it is) then why try to define it in the first place with terms like quality and dynamic which have all sorts of definite connotations. If it is indefinable then leave it undefined for goodness sake. ROGER: Yep you are canny. But the trick was never intended to be simply linguistic (though it does work that way too). I do agree that the term 'Quality' brings with it a lot of baggage (though a lot less than 'morality'). However, it does tie together into an interesting self referential knot. That which exists is that with Quality, that which evolves is that with Quality. experience itself is Quality. Quality is the universe, the process of its development, its means of recognizing itself, and the judge of the term best suitable to label the universe, the process and the ability to ........ Sounds kind of cute and 'sophist'icated, I agree. But it also matches up with prety well everything I have read on modern scientific theory. In fact you yourself suggested something similar........ THEO/STRUAN: "Modern science and philosophy is ultimately concerned with relations, not with substance...." ROGER: In fact I concur completely. I see 'value,' or better yet, 'relation' as being superior terms than 'Quality' or 'Morality.' If I was to write my own metaphysics I have always thought I would use one of these first two terms. SUMMARY: In conclusion I concur with you on most points, though not always for the same reason, nor do I agree at all with your dismissal of the MOQ due to these points. The score so far IMHO: Free will: The MOQ works great, Pirsig botched the explanation Ethics: The MOQ works as well as anything, Pirsig oversold in the 1st half of the book Originality: Not much in the pieces, but great in the package Strawman: Pirsig and the MOQ were correct that SOM lingers and permeates western society. Struan is right that it shouldn't. Terminology: We should consider the term 'relation' rather than 'quality,' especially with a more scientific audience. Let me know your thoughts. Roger 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]
