From: Paul Turner (paul@turnerbc.co.uk)
Date: Tue Aug 31 2004 - 12:48:48 BST
Ham
Ham said:
I've been trying to nail down what it is that fundamentally divides the
MOQ from Essentialism. After reviewing the posts on this thread, I
think I've
discovered it. Our fundamental difference is not that I see Quality as
a derivation of a unified source that MOQers equate with the whole of
physical reality, although I consider that notion as extended
empiricism.
Paul:
Quality is not equated with physical reality. Where did you get that
from? Empirical does not necessarily mean objective, as is explained in
LILA.
Ham said:
The basic difference is your "collectivist" conception of man himself.
Paul:
Denying that individuals have an essential self does not make one a
collectivist.
I guess it was inevitable that politics entered into the discussion,
before long Hitler will rear his ugly head...
Ham said:
The fact that there is a need to discuss "the Individual in the MOQ"
suggests that some of us have a problem identifying the individual in
Pirsig's stratified layer ontology which breaks out Intellect (not the
self) as the "highest evolutionary" rung on the ladder.
Paul:
It seems there is a problem for some and the archive of this thread
contains everything I want to say about this.
Ham said:
Defining man as a composite of biological and inorganic patterns...
Paul:
...and social and intellectual patterns and Dynamic awareness.
Ham said:
...obscures the proprietary awareness (subjectivity) of the individual
and makes man's existential freedom questionable.
Paul:
That's okay because, as above, man is not defined as a composite of
inorganic and biological patterns.
Ham said:
I'm not an advocate of Ayn Rand's philosophy in general. But she was
right
on her ideology of individualism. Consider this quote from "For the New
Intellectual":
"...from the wheel to the skyscraper, everything we are and everything
we
have comes from a single attribute of man--the functioning of his
reasoning
mind."
"But the mind is an attribute of the individual. There is no such thing
as
a collective brain. There is no such thing as a collective thought. An
agreement reached by a group of men is only a compromise or an average
drawn
upon many individual thoughts. It is a secondary consequence. The
primary
act--the process of reason--must be performed by each man alone. We can
divide a meal among many men. We cannot digest it in a collective
stomach.
No man can use his lungs to breathe for another man. No man can use his
brain to think for another. All the functions of body and spirit are
private. They cannot be shared or transferred."
Paul:
Rand sees the relationship of mind to the brain as the same as that of
digestion to the stomach. This is the kind of mistake that materialists
are forced to make. The brain cannot be "shared or transferred" but
ideas, which share none of the properties of matter, can and are. For
someone who trumpets "reason," this is a poor example of it.
Also, if, instead of Rand's materialist assumptions, you see mind as
dependent on social patterns e.g. language, then is it correct to say
that each individual thinks in his own individual language, that, as
language requires individuals to speak it that language is primarily
private?
Is "reason" an individual pattern? Then why aren't there several
billions of different types of reason? Did each individual put forward
his own proprietary way of reasoning until an "agreement was reached"
and "an average drawn?" That must have been quite a meeting.
Ham said:
There is a trend in the Western world, particularly in the liberal
Mentality, to view man's inadequacies and achievements in the collective
sense -- as a cause or movement in society.
Paul:
I don't see the relevance of this statement to this discussion, except
to have a pop at liberals.
Ham said:
I'm afraid that Mr. Pirsig has borrowed from this paradigm, making it
almost impossible to discern man, the individual, in this multi-layered
heirachy of values.
Paul:
It's not impossible to discern individuals in the MOQ. Its definition of
an individual is: a collection of patterns from all levels with the
ability to apprehend Dynamic Quality. Outside of this the individual in
the MOQ has no "essence" though, if that is what you are arguing for.
Ham said:
My philosophy of Essence is individual-oriented, which is why I've
called it totally "subjective"
Paul:
That, in my opinion, is your first mistake. You've already fallen into
the trap of subjective/objective as fundamental, primary aspects of
reality from which you must choose.
Ham said:
Man -- you and I individually, not as a group species...
Paul:
Who is saying anything about a "group species" in this discussion? I
guess you have me pegged as a liberal or a commie.
Ham said:
...is the primary "dynamic agent" in the realization of Value through
the exercise of personal freedom.
Paul:
"Personal freedom" is one of those platitudes that is guaranteed to get
people to wave a few flags but, as a slogan, becomes fairly meaningless
upon analysis. Am I personally free to take whatever I want from you?
Does that realise value for you? Is the rapist personally free to
experience his value at the cost of his victim? Is a student personally
free to steal exam papers to realise valuable grades? Is the Islamic
terrorist free to strap explosives to himself and detonate on a crowded
bus to realise his religious values?
Ham said:
This core idea of Essentialism is missing in Pirsig's MOQ
Paul:
On the contrary, I think the evolutionary levels and static-Dynamic
conflict of the MOQ provide a rich and sophisticated analysis of
personal freedom, within a sound metaphysical basis.
Ham said:
Since man is the subject of all experience, and cognizance of reality is
proprietary to the individual, this must be the starting point of any
philosophy.
Paul:
The MOQ argues that experience must be the starting point of philosophy.
Where did the subject come from? Did the subject exist before it had an
experience? What was it doing before it had an experience? How does a
subject know it was already there without experience?
Ham said:
Hence, I must take issue with the MOQer's insistence in putting Quality
first. Neither Quality nor Value can exist without individual
sensibility, and nothing exists without a Creator.
Paul:
So the Creator (God?) creates "individuals" who then start to experience
value?
The MOQ and Essentialism are indeed different.
Regards
Paul
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Aug 31 2004 - 13:06:21 BST