Greetings,
I'm Glen. I have been an inactive member for the past couple of months,
whilst I languished enspelled by an evil corporate wizard. But at last
I have cast off my fetters! And am now once again free to confuse and
astound you, my intellectual brothers and sisters, with my keen insight
and bad spelling. I will begin my essay in a petty and spiteful tone and
gradually descend through the serious neuroses, and end on a note of
complete paranoia and psychosis.
Give Me A Dynamic Intellectual Patterns Or Give Me Death
--------------------------------------------------------
I don't like calling it "catechism". For one, it's too hard to spell
and two, I generally associate a katekhizm with the Catholic church and
children memorizing a complex formula which they may or may not
understand. This may seem minor but names are important. While none of
us may intend to create an orthodoxy, this is exactly how they get
started. Orthodoxy is absolutely not what we want to achieve.
Already I a voice in my head saying; "But wouldn't some kind of
compilation of the fundamental assertions of the MoQ be helpful?
Without such a compilation how could we differentiate between our
"superior" metaphysics and those benighted souls using the other
brands?"
And the cynic in the corner is thinking; "The masses are never going to
REALLY understand the MoQ (look what they did to Christianity - yikes!),
how can we "sell" the MoQ to them without such some such construct that
they can pretend they understand." Both of these are good arguments, if
a little cynical.
My answer has two parts;
1) The MoQ is primarily a replacement for SO-Reason, not Religion*.
SO-Reason, and it's replacement the MoQ or (Q-Reason), are primarily
tools for creating intellectual patterns. SO based Reason is generally
a much better tool for creating intellectual patterns than it's
predecessor, Superstition and Magic but lately we have begun to notice
problems in the patterns that Reason creates. We can't imagine
abandoning Reason, and returning to the demon haunted world of magic, so
we attempt to compensate for the problems Reason creates as best we
can. In other words, we herd platypi instead of letting them run amok.
One of the great failings of SO-Reason was its orthodoxy. Orthodox
SO-Reason demanded that all things(events) be either a subject(ive) or
object(ive). Platypi, such as Mind-Body, that seemed grey or slippery
were simply a result of our own lack of understanding, not a basic fault
in SO-Reason. If the MoQ must have a basic tenet then I suggest; "To
remain unconstrained by existing intellectual patterns in the pursuit of
Quality." A Freedom from intellectual orthodoxy should be our only
absolute tenet. To truly release ourselves from SO-Reason, we must
continue to value a dynamic principle in our static intellectual
patterns. I think that some degeneration will be the price for this
lack of orthodoxy, but while the degeneration is lamentable, it is
preferable to stagnation.
Unquestionably common interpretations of the MoQ will arise, probably
containing many of the elements that most of us consider as basic, in my
case; empiricism, a discrete hierarchy of static patterns, the evolution
of patterns & c. These elements will be retained over time not because
the MoQ could not exist without them, but because there is more Quality
in retaining them, than discarding them.
2) While the masses may never be able to articulate a description of
the MoQ, they do understand Quality. In fact they constantly change and
adapt the static patterns of their environment in order to maximize the
Quality in their lives. Nobody needs to "sell" them anything. One of
the greatest strengths of the MoQ is the simplicity and elegance of its
explanation, especially when compared to other popular metaphysical
systems. Were people not indoctrinated into a religious tradition from
childhood, how many would accept the myths, teachings, and sacraments as
an adult? (I wonder if this is why different religions groups often
have such animosity for one another.) In discussing the MoQ with others
I often find it more difficult to explain how the SO Metaphysics is
broken, than to explain what "Pirsig the Sly Boots" says in the books.
People seem to find believable the "evolution of everything", the
discrete static patterns of value, empiricism, and an undeniable goal
that everything wants to evolve toward. I think people as a whole, have
been maneuvering around the broken parts of the SO Metaphysics for a
long time. Clearly if we fail to instill our metaphysics in new
generations, then the MoQ will die with us, an static intellectual
pattern leading nowhere despite all its superiority. (This is why I
support tatooing a single page, from either ZMM or Lila, on the chest or
back, of every child born in this country)
Metaphysics of Quality: World Conversion Timeline
-------------------------------------------------
The problem I encounter most in frequently when explaining the MoQ to
people is apathy. Unlike you and I, it would seem that the general
population doesn't consciously lament the inadequacies of their current
metaphysical system. Receipt of the news that a better metaphysics has
been invented is usually not greeted with standing ovations, yawns are
more likely. Other metaphysical system definitely have a leg up on the
MoQ it terms of sheer sex appeal, consider some of the activities they
offer: persecuting unbelievers, barbecuing people unlike yourself,
bombing abortion clinics, holy war, demonic possession, orgys, secret
satanic rites, not to mention sacraments, baptisms, Christmas,
communion, bar mitzvahs, & c**. Unifying Art, Religion, and Science
just can't compare.
Of late I have considered issuing challenges to debate local
organizations with a metaphysical standing. It might not be much of a
strain intellectually, but if the challenge was issued correctly it
could get some attention accepted or not. I can't imagine some of the
fundamentalist sects or college philosophy departments refusing to
debate. I am curious to hear what some of you think of this.
- Glen
* Of course, the MoQ is going to conflict with some religious traditions
and values, just as its predecessor Reason did. In some ways I think
the MoQ is less hostile to Religion than as its predecessor Reason was,
and in some ways more. SO-Reason never passed a moral judgment on a
Religious tradition, but the MoQ (or Q-Reason) will! On the other hand,
SO-Reason was never able to "compute" Religion. SO-Reason was just
incapable of valuing or understanding Religion, but Q-Reason can and
does.
**In order to attract notice to the MoQ as an up and coming metaphysical
system I answered an add in the back of Rolling Stone and have become a
certifiable "Holy Man", I have since performed two wedding ceremonies,
which I wrote myself and went over quite well if I do say so. As I
understand the law anybody can simply declare themselves to be a
minister, holy man, shaman, whatever and legally perform marriages.
*** You think your so clever. I know your all plotting against me.
"Ice Cream Makes Computers Work Better Spoon It Right In."
MOQ Online - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jan 17 2002 - 13:08:39 GMT