Greetings,
For anyone who cares to look at what I have written over the last week or so, the following summary
will show most of the criticism levelled against me to be utterly misplaced:
1) I have affirmed the value of mysticism. (although mysticism is not a metaphysics, it is an
approach)
2) I have affirmed the value of materialism. (in its coherent form).
3) I have affirmed the value of the MoQ as encompassing both in a rational way.
4) I have affirmed morality as being central to existence.
I have affirmed these in a precise and methodical way and now put it to the squad that the only
people who can possibly object fall into one of the following categories:
1) Naive mystics with no appreciation of rational debate as a useful tool for seeking the 'good'
2) Naive materialists with a simplistic notion of what constitutes 'material.'
3) Those who lack understanding of my position or refuse to contemplate it.
4) Those with a poor understanding of the possibilities of the MoQ.
Furthermore, I put it to the squad that anyone who falls into one of these categories (with the
exception of the third which could simply be a result of them disliking my rhetoric to which I
naturally have no objection - after all, why should you listen to me?) rejects the very thing that
makes the MoQ unique and valuable and I have no interest in continuing to debate with them on these
issues.
If there are those who agree with the central thrust outlined here and elaborated on in my postings,
then I hope they will allow me to be included in their discussions and I invite them to discuss the
MoQ with these principles in mind. If the group as a whole think that this is nonsense then I will
gladly develop my thoughts elsewhere - I'm not disposed to time-wasting. To my mind the MoQ should
not be oppositional, (although Pirsig and his acolytes present it as such too often and some on this
forum thrive on being bloody minded), it is a potentially exciting and valuable contribution to
philosophy and the philosophy of science, which is holistic in nature and which seeks to unify
seemingly disparate disciplines in a coherent way.
Comments?
Struan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I propose now to wrap up remaining objections in this one posting.
PLATT:
My apologies. I wasn't precise enough. I meant to refer you to the quotation, "Human beings are
moral to the core." However, I didn't say the other quotation was meaningless. Read it again.
The quotation you supply in refutation: “First, that all reality is essentially a material reality;
second, no supernatural or immaterial reality can exist; and third, that all organic life arises
from and return to inorganic matter." (if you can see past the linguistics) is entirely compatible
with the MoQ. The second half of the sentence could be rewritten thus; the organic level evolved out
of the inorganic level and will regress if it behaves immorally, etc etc. . . do I need to go on?
You are making the same assumption about what constitutes 'material' when you interpret the first
half of the sentence as David makes below and as such commit the same mistake. I'll stick with
Vitzthum to answer your question and if that stretches your credulity then so be it. As for
reinterpretation, I never said that materialism IS the MoQ and I never implied that there isn't a
lot of reinterpretation to be done. That surely is the challenge, should we care to accept it.
One more loose end to dispose of:
DAVID:
"How can Chalmers say "mass and volume no longer exist" and still be called a materialist?"
ANSWER:
With the greatest of ease. Materialism DOES NOT have to accept the classical account of what
constitutes material in order to be coherent!!! This is absolutely plain to anyone who cares to read
his work or my postings on this forum or the work of any coherent materialist from the last few
decades.
Your premise is false and, as this renders the rest of your posting obsolete, I am able to ignore
the petty insults and provocative, pointless, pompous pontificating which constitutes the rest of
it, (and that alliterative sentence, but my, it was fun). Some of us here are interested in
discussing Pirsig's ideas AND the corollary of Pirsig's ideas, not in forming some faintly ludicrous
fan club burning incense at his altar. I hope the rules can be extended to require everyone, not
only to read Lila and ZMM, but also to read properly any series of postings they care to reply to
before jumping in feet first. It would save a great deal of repetition and brouhaha.
Struan
------------------------------------------
Struan Hellier
< mailto:struan@shellier.freeserve.co.uk>
"All our best activities involve desires which are disciplined and
purified in the process."
(Iris Murdoch)
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:49 BST