Re: MD Is the MoQ still in the Kantosphere?

From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Thu Dec 30 2004 - 23:19:49 GMT

  • Next message: Phaedrus Wolff: "Re: MD Is the MoQ still in the Kantosphere?"

    Hi again, Chin:

    > (I did the [Quality] replacement for the words "religion", "religious"
    and
    > "theology", and added a little at the end to 'God'.)
    >
    > "But what if [Quality] precedes rationality? What if it is[Quality] that
    > makes thought possible? Then, [Quality] would know no limits; its thought
    of
    > transcendence would be its own transgression. What if the [Quality] realm
    > belonged to the immediate self-conscious, if it were the universal feeling
    > of absolute dependence? Then, [Quality] would be a thinking that both
    agrees
    > and disagrees with Kant. Yes, [Quality] cannot be thought because it comes
    > before thought and cannot be bound by the limits thought necessarily
    imposes
    > on itself in order to think and to know. But at the same time,[Quality]
    > cannot not be thought, because every thought is incomplete without that
    > which gives thought to think. As Schleiermacher tells us, thinking is also
    a
    > feeling, and feeling is also an action. So the thought that thinks and
    feels
    > and acts is the thought rightly named [Quality] . And as long as thought
    > knows
    > its limits by acknowledging its dependence, then [Quality] is ensured as
    the
    > hidden ontology that secures the place of God [Essence, Source, Creator,
    > One,
    > Allah, Nothingness, Being -- Quality]"

    Yes, that's the substitution I made -- except for your improvised conclusion
    Doesn't it suggest the Pirsigian style of dialectic? Doesn't it, in fact,
    express the same concept?

    Now, you've gone to the trouble of providing a scenario for Buddha's
    enlightment. Your purpose, I take it, is to demonstrate that all spiritual
    contemplation, whether religious or philosophical, is essentially the same.
    That's too generalistic for me, Chin. I think one can carry eclecticism
    only so far; beyond that point one's position loses structure as well as
    meaning. There is sufficient mystery in philosophy without deliberately
    trying to 'universalize' it.

    I understand that we are all seeking a higher truth, and that language is
    inadequate for this objective. I also understand the limitations of man's
    rational perspective in attempting to comprehend a non-rational universe.
    But language, reason and (perhaps) intuition are all we have to work with.
    As philosophers, I think we have an obligation to use these tools as best we
    can to reach a conclusion we can live with. Disagreement and error are a
    natural part of the dialectical process --remember Hegel's
    "thesis-antithesis-synthesis"?

    You yourself quoted Pirsig on the importance of defining one's philosophy:

    > "The second phase emerged as a result of normal intellectual criticism of
    his
    > lack of definition of what he was talking about. In this phase he made
    > systematic, rigid statements about what Quality is, and worked out an
    > enormous hierarchic structure of thought to support them. He literally had
    > to move heaven and earth to arrive at this systematic understanding and
    when
    > he was done felt he'd achieved an explanation of existence and our
    > consciousness of it better than any that had existed before."

    But while the philosopher may satisfy himself that he has achieved a "better
    explanation of existence", it may still not be
    complete enough to pass along to others. There may be major omissions or
    logical errors in the theory, some of which he may not have thought of. Or,
    he may not have articulated his theory in a manner that is totally
    comprehensible to others. Finally, he must compete on the same ground with
    other philosophers and their ideas to test the originality and significance
    of his work He may not be capable of accomplishing all this in his
    lifetime. Yet, his philosophy must be complete, and the issues he posits
    resolved, before the author can justifiably be credited for making a
    contribution to philosophy.

    At least, this is what I think the MoQ forum serves to do, and it should
    define our purpose for being here.

    Thanks for the consideration, Chin.

    And, Happy New Year!
    Ham

    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 : Thu Dec 30 2004 - 23:21:16 GMT