Greetings,
Total, utter and unmitigated scepticism about all claims to a correct view of life is my view of
life Jon - and yes, that scepticism also applies to my scepticism.
-----------------------------------
Roger, I killed Theo. He was a sloppy thinker who ignored the roots of his beliefs and spent too
much time trying to please in an effort to further his own understanding and, in doing so, he lost
sight of the ball. I've no idea what he really believed, but he had to die. There is only me now, so
that is who you are communicating with. I think Theo objected to Struan's sweeping destructions of
every argument at once. He attempted to steer people in the general direction of Struan by only
questioning one small thing at a time while letting what Struan would have considered obvious
nonsense go. Both of us looked for value in the moq. It wasn't there.
1) Free will - We agree Pirsig botched it. I disagree that the moq has anything valid to say about
it TO ME at all. Your solution is that we are no longer just subjects under the moq and that this
somehow disposes of the problem. ("Re: MF Free Will/Determinism NOT Nature/Nurture (Fri Nov 05
1999 - 04:38:44 GMT))" :-
ROGER:
"The MOQ can come to our rescue though, for we are no longer just 'subjects',
we are better defined as 'patterns of value'. Interestingly enough, I think
you will agree that 'will' is a value pattern as well. Free will is hence
defined as agreement between patterns of value. Free will is the consistency
of our definitions of self and desire."
Firstly, there is no need for a rescue because there is no problem to resolve. Secondly, I'm afraid
I can't make head nor tail of that Roger. I don't have the first clue what you are trying to say.
Never mind though, if it resolves a perceived problem to your satisfaction then that is great. I
will stick with the realisation that free will lies in the fact that we cannot predict what we are
going to do and thus I save myself from having to request a re-write.
2) Ethics. You say that Pirsig 'rejects intellectual rationalisations' of ethical dilemmas. O.K, the
moq approach to ethics is not rational. I couldn't agree more. So you effectively say that Pirsig's
irrational ethical system is to "continuously re-evaluate new approaches to problems using the
framework of the hierarchy of quality." Fine, so long as we agree that this is irrational. I want a
rational explanation and have no more reason to accept this than to accept that my cat pronounces
upon all ethical dilemmas with complete authority. Thus I reject it.
3) Originality - But Pirsig 'solves' the problems in different ways to others. It is just that he
has to misunderstand and misreport the problems first before his solutions work, (As with free
will/determinism, nature/ nurture, SOM, materialism, substance, science, mind, matter etc, etc ). He
clarifies popular misconceptions with his own misconceptions and thus clarifies nothing.
4) SOM - Well, personally I think we all have a hedgehog/non-hedgehog metaphysics. (HNHM) I
sincerely believe that whatever we look at, our brains classify it as either a hedgehog or a
non-hedgehog before we then subclassify it as a tree, house or whatever. And do you know, most
people aren't aware of it? Thank God I have seen the light. But seriously, objectivity is a tool. No
more and no less. If I want to measure how long my bed is, I will objectively use a tape measure
having first objectified the bed and realised that I am the subject who is doing the measuring.
Scientists are not in the business of putting metaphysical disclaimers at the foot of their papers.
Now, of course, I could attempt to measure the bed by refusing to classify it as a bed, by taking
some acid, going into a mystical trance and marvelling at, like, wow, I'm one with my tape measure
and bed man, but I suspect that by the time I peeled myself off the ceiling my wife would be a
little peeved that I hadn't got round to buying the mattress. Methinks that a defence along the
lines of, "Well I didn't want to place an Aristotelian classificatory system upon what you define as
a bed but I see as a fusion of various patterns of value which are metaphysically indistinct from
the patterns of value you call your husband, so the other patterns of value you call a tape measure
didn't really come into the equation because they are just extensions of other patterns of value and
therefore the whole concept of measuring the bed distinguishes you as steeped in SOM," might result
in me knowing the precise length of my rectum - if you get my drift.
5) Quality - Agreed. Relation is much better.
My conclusions?
Freewill - the moq is superfluous and irrelevant.
Ethics - the moq proposes an irrational ethic.
Originality - original answers to invented questions. Pointless.
SOM - A literary device and nothing more. I personally subscribe to HNHM
Terminology - forget quality and with it morality, value and good.
Struan
P.S. Denis, if you would change your last sentence to, "Therefore, it is obvious we have to keep X,"
I would agree 100%.
------------------------------------------
Struan Hellier
< mailto:struan@clara.co.uk>
"All our best activities involve desires which are disciplined and
purified in the process."
(Iris Murdoch)
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:36 BST