From: david buchanan (dmbuchanan@hotmail.com)
Date: Sun Aug 28 2005 - 19:16:25 BST
Mark, Sam, David M and all MOQers:
Sam said to Mark:
Firstly, I think your point is spot on about believing "the idea that
Quality creates subjects and objects...is no different than believing that
God created and the maintains the universe". That's
exactly what I'm talking about. ...Matt brings in his knowledge of Rorty
etc, which specifically *does* undermine some central tenets of the MoQ -
the ones where the MoQ functions as a substitute for religious faith. I
think it is precisely that bringing in of external conceptions of
metaphysics which provokes the 'cult' like reaction (in a minority) -
because it undermines the faith which some have in the MoQ as a complete
metaphysics answering all the deep questions of life.
dmb says:
An old friend of mine, one I haven't seen in years, wrote a book about
cults. I interviewed her about it for a little hack TV show I did about ten
years ago. Not that this makes me an expert or anything, but I have thought
about the issue a little bit. First thing I'd point out is that its
virtually impossible to form a cult in cyberspace. To indoctrinate someone
into the belief system of a cult requires that the recruit be tightly
controlled and, according to my pal, often involves a dysfunctional personal
relationship with the leader or other cult members. There is also the need
to control behavior, to control the flow of information that might
contradict the belief system and real people in a face to face situation
need to monitor the thoughts and emotions of the new recruit throughout this
process. (I also knew one of the early practicioners of scientology who
served at a case study for my friends book. She had lived on a boat with
L.Ron Hubbard for a time while being recruited into his inner circle.) Cults
will usually demand most of your time and money too. None of that can be
done here. Nobody has control over the flow of information. No one can
prevent dissent or even ridicule. Its just a bunch of people talking freely.
A cult needs a leader too. Haven't you ever noticed the complete absence of
Robert Pirsig or any other leader here? We may all compete to be heard and
some people might be better at that than others, but that's just the way it
goes. Deal with it.
Sam explained:
My working understanding of 'cult' is the same as my working understanding
of fundamentalism - it's a closed system. Anything which doesn't fit into
the system is rejected as being 'impure' - or, here, 'you're still mired in
SOM thinking'.
dmb says:
I don't think your working understanding works at all. This same description
can be used to describe the way bad scientific ideas are rejected through a
peer-review process. By your definition the biological science is a cult
because creationism is rejected for being "impure" and geological science is
a cult because it has slammed the door on the flat earth society. And
besides that, rejecting SOM and rejecting the correspondance theory of truth
are just two names for the same thing. Buddhist philosophers rejected the
pre-existing subjective self more than a thousand years ago. Why are you not
concerned with the cult status of linguistic philosophers, neo-pragmatist or
Eastern thinkers. They are equally critical of those who are "mired in SOM
thinking". Sorry Sam, but it looks to me like you are way too eager to
discredit your main critics (including me) with rather vague and baseless
charge. If you're going to make the accusation, the least you can do is be
specific in order to demonstrate the basis of your criticism. Otherwise its
just a bunch of attitude and hot air with no real substance. And I also have
to point that you have apparently been the victim of several huge hoaxes,
intelliigent design, the war in Iraq and the Anglican church. I think buying
into these causes, for which there is no evidence at all, demonstrates a
very sheepish mind. ;-)
Sam said:
What I think is most needed, as I said yesterday, is opening up the windows
to let in some fresh air -for example, linking the MoQ with Rorty, or
Wittgenstein, or anyone else. This doesn't threaten the
MoQ as a whole; what it threatens is a) Pirsig's status as one of the five
greatest minds of the millenium, and b) the exclusivity and importance
vested in the MoQ as a global system of answers. It's adherence to those two
things which mark out the 'cult' aspects - and if nobody here accepts those
two things, then I shall have been disproven in my thesis (grin).
dmb says:
We should link the MOQ with Rorty's work because it "doesn't threaten the
MOQ as a whole"? But in the paragraph above you just said, "Matt brings in
his knowledge of Rorty etc, which specifically *does* undermine some central
tenets of the MoQ". So which is it? Are you going to try to make a case
that Rorty undermines the MOQ's central tentants AND, in the very same post,
also assert that it poses no threat to the MOQ as whole? Call me a cult
leader in the church of reason or whatever if you want, but I'm gonna go
ahead and reject that assertion on the basis that you contradicted yourself
and on the basis that it makes no sense. Sometimes ideas and systems of
ideas are not compatible with each other becuase they make contradictory and
mutually exclusive claims. The process of debating which ideas fit and which
ones don't is an act of intellectual discrimination.
Color me hypnotized becasue I don't think it makes any sense to insert
thesim into an explicitly anti-theistic system. Call me crazy, but I don't
think amoral systems are compatible with Pirsig's inquiry into values and
morals. I must be the victim of a cult because of this conviction I have
about only accepting ideas that actually make sense. The implicaton that
this process proceeds here on the basis of cultish adherence - or whatever -
is being made vaguely against straw men. Who, besides a fictional character,
ever said Pirsig was one of the five greatest minds of the millenuim. And
what the heck is a gloabal system of answers? What does it mean to say the
MOQ is exclusive? As I've said several times, one of the things I like best
about the MOQ is that it is big enough and broad enough to accomodate my
other intellectual heros. I have no problem bringing external sources into
the mix and in fact I do it myself all the time. (Campbell, Kingsley,
Wilber, Watts.) And I often lay quotes out side by side so that the
compatibility of ideas is clearly demonstated. Can you do that? I don't see
why not.
Its not that I trust reason OR the MOQ above all things, but I do think
assertions about the MOQ have to make sense. I don't understand how anyone
could have a problem with that general principle. We can disagree about what
makes sense and what doesn't and debate the issue, but who would dispute the
simple assertion that some things will fit and some things won't? Does that
mean its a closed system and therefore a cult? No, that just means that the
MOQ has a certain structure and specific borders just like any other system
of thought, like any machine. I think you've confused the necessity of
intellectual integrity within a system of thought with the cultish adherence
of unquestioning religious believers. This is a good an example of
imcompatible ideas being compared when they are actually opposed. I honestly
think this makes no sense. The two can only be contrasted with each other
and are mutually exclusive in many ways. People in cults rely on faith and
authority while the boundries set up to protect biology from creationism,
for example, rely on evidence and reason. One is marked by a strong tendency
to hide from evidence and the other one DEMANDS it. A person who accepts
faith and hides from evidence, for example, might try to assert that the
bread and the wine are actually transformed into the body and blood of
Christ but that this change is not detectable in any scientific way and can
only be percieved by the believers, or some bullshit fairy tale like that.
Adopting an empirically based system just can't be compared to that even if
some people accept that empirical system on faith.
Similarly, the idea that "Quality creates subjects and objects" is not one
that is supposed to be accepted on the basis of faith or authority and so
bears no resemblance to the belief in a creator God. We are presently
discussing this issue in the "Experience" thread, and you've told me that
you don't understand it. So how can you compare it to ANYTHING? In any case,
the idea refers to an experience. It is based on empirical reality. I
understand that its a contentious and difficult issue, but Pirsig's claims
here are based on an as yet hardly explored brand of empiricism. We can
debate that. Looks like Matt K, Paul and I are just about to do that. I
think this is exactly where pragmatism and mysticsm clash. For now, however,
I have to say that your comparison between the MOQ and theistic faith is
pre-mature, if not completely unfounded. In fact, Sam, without any specifics
your accusations amount to nothing more than school-yard taunts.
Sam said:
I still think Rick (Valence) had it right in saying that we need the
'rhetoric of Quality' (ie using the word Quality in the way Pirsig has
pioneered, using the levels as a hierarchy etc) and to let go of the
'metaphysics of Quality' (ie all the ways in which the MoQ tries to be a
religious system, with DQ corresponding, via the Jamesian 'mystical
experiences', to God).
dmb says:
I've already responded to this idea in my explanations above. But I would
point out that this is one of the moves that would replace of the MOQ's
central ideas with an idea that opposes it. It makes no sense unless the
goal is to replace the MOQ with an entirely different and opposed system.
Its not just an additon. Its not a small change. This move would rip the
heart out of the thing. As I see it, you have proposed that our motorcycle
with be faster and easier to ride by taking the wheels off and replacing the
engine with a candle. All I can do is scratch my head and wonder how you got
to be such a god-awful mechanic.
Thanks.
_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
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 : Mon Aug 29 2005 - 13:45:56 BST