From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@tiscali.co.uk)
Date: Sun Apr 11 2004 - 16:10:37 BST
Hi Mark,
> There is no Eudaemonic level in the MoQ, as you know well.
Which is why I have always tried to make clear the difference between my conception and the
'standard' MoQ. I am explicitly proposing a change - a variant type of MoQ, and the change is, I
would argue, comparatively minor. (It keeps what I see as the major building blocks of the MoQ
completely intact). I see that as a legitimate endeavour, especially within this forum. Do you
consider it illegitimate? If so, are we only allowed exegesis of the sacred text or are we permitted
to explore variations to Scripture?
> The MoQ does not need it.
I disagree.
> In MoQ terms, your development is an attempt to encapsulate the intellectual
> level in Social dress, and is therefore a continuation of a historical
> struggle between the social function of the church and intellectual freedom. In this
> regard your tinkering is low Quality Intellectual value.
For various reasons which I've gone into _ad nauseam_ I reject 'intellectual' as a coherent
description of the fourth level. If anything I'm trying to describe the necessity to have a social
level which allows the fourth level to flourish. Whether that represents 'low Quality Intellectual
value' is partly a matter of opinion, partly a matter of begging the question at issue. Any chance
you could offer a more substantive objection? Simply to describe what I'm doing as social level vs
intellectual level is a meaningless rhetorical gesture unless you can justify the claim.
> Christians, like all those who adhere to rigid static social patterns,
I find this 'globalising' mode of argument vacuous. It's a bit like saying, 'people, like all those
who adhere to rigid static biological patterns' when the point at issue is whether 'people'
describes biological or social entities (or some other combination). Similarly all you've achieved
with this point is to assert a prejudice, that a Christian is someone lacking intellect. Forgive me
if I find that naive - at best.
> Christians, like all those who adhere to rigid static social patterns, must
> form a coherent relationship with DQ.
What counts as a 'coherent' relationship? Are you saying it needs to be conceptualised?
> This may be done well, or poorly.
Yes..... and?
> You try
> to do this well by introducing Eudaemonic notions which protect static social
> convention
No I do not. That's the reverse of what I'm trying to do.
> while attempting to accommodate intellectual freedoms - but you
> also negate absolute intellectual freedom to understand the Good.
You need to justify the criticism in that last clause. At the moment there seems nothing to respond
to. In what way am I negating 'absolute intellectual freedom'?
> For you, the Good is equated with God and not DQ/SQ coherence.
Disagree - in so far as I understand the point. What makes you think that? I would equate God with
Quality, by and large. I would equate DQ/SQ coherence with the mystical path
(apophatic/capophatic) - something I'll be saying more on in MF before too long.
> I don't bother myself with your static Quality very often because i have
> better things to do.
Thank you for returning from your nirvana to share your enlightenment with mere mortals ;-)
> But i wished to make these comments for the benefit of anyone
> else who finds Christian meddling with the MoQ offensive.
Is it the 'meddling' that's the problem, or the fact that I do it from a Christian perspective?
If the former, I think you're trying to create a closed system which is antithetical to the aims of
both Pirsig and the majority of contributors to the forum. This thread was explicitly set up to
explore questions of if or whether one particular religion had more Quality than another - and I'm
just one voice. Is it the entire thread you object to? Then why not ignore it?
If the latter I think you should be open about your prejudices, and list which perspectives you'd
like to see barred from contributing to the discussion. From my point of view I think that the
boundaries of discourse in the forum need to be set as widely as possible. That's the burden of my
current debate with Matt - I think he's articulating a closed system, and ANY system which closes
itself off becomes self-referential, and therefore hampered in its openness to Dynamic Quality.
Which I think we would agree was a bad thing.
Sam
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 : Sun Apr 11 2004 - 16:11:17 BST