[Arlo] "Throwing quotes"?? Let me ask this, if "morality" (here also read as "betterness", since that was Krimel's claimed only manifested as human value judgement), what truly new does the MOQ bring? Seems to me it does nothing new, as camps from idealism to humanism have claimed "man against an amoral world". This is, of course, the underlying premise to S/O metaphysics that Pirsig railed against. In other words, if "betterness" (as Pirsig suggests) is not the fundamental "Quality" of all levels, what is the draw here? If we dismiss that "Quality" is "betterness" and consider it "amoral", why even call it "Quality"? What is "revolutionary" about a philosophy that posits a "moral man" interacting with an "amoral world"?
[Krimel] I have been pretty straight forward from the gitgo that I see the MoQ from a Taoist ZMM point of view. I think Pirsig erred in calling the Tao Quality, precisely because it emphasizes one understanding of the Tao at the expense of another. The Tao is The Way. It is a journey, a process. I might go so far as to say the Tao is a verb not a noun. A process either continues or it stops. When it becomes a noun it dies. Evolution is the study of what continues; the Tao as verb. The problem with what you are saying above lies in the statement "man against an amoral world". I believe this is what James was reacting to in the quote dmb offered up. Man is not against the world. Man must live in harmony with the world or not at all. This is more than a moral imperative. It is a harsh reality that people throughout time have understood far better than we. [Arlo] As I said last time out, "betterness" is only problematic when it is applied to the MOQ's levels from a detached, external, human perspective. Often the levels are in conflict, as when an asteroid pummels the earth's "biosphere". In such a case, what is good for the inorganic patterns is often devastating for biological patterns. And while that asteroid lacks biological, social and intellectual "morality", it IS inorganic morality. I don't think this waters down the word at all. In fact, what it does is argue against the S/O dichotomy. [Krimel] Any definition of "betterness" that includes the earth getting smacked by asteroids makes no sense at all. Betterness is this sense is no better that chaos. And at least chance does not lull you into a false sense of security. [Arlo] It makes no sense to me to call something "Quality", and then claim it is "amoral" and has nothing to do with "betterness". Quality is by its very conception a recognition that "some things are better than others", that is they have "greater Quality". [Krimel] I agree that Quality is a bad term. But even with Quality the point is that it is undefined. How is "betterness" less a definition than "worseness". The Tao simply is. Any perception of good or bad arises purely from us and our relationship to it. [Arlo} I dunno, this whole need to separate "man" out from the "world", this reification of the same-old S/O dualism baffles me. I mean, with Ham I get it, he is actively arguing _against_ the proposals of the MOQ, S/O dualism is fundamentally important to his philosophy. But this is something I would say is truly critical to any revolutionary understandings Pirsig gives us, and to be honest I'm not sure what the point of the MOQ would be without it. [Krimel] I am not suggesting that man is separate from the world. We arise from it and are part of it. But there are qualitative differences between the world and our perceptions. I think my experience of the world is distinct from yours and that both are distinct from the world itself. There is a major difference between how we understand the world and how we explain our understanding to others. [Arlo] Or maybe its just me having a bad day... [Krimel] Sorry to hear it but let's hope so. 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
