From: Ant McWatt (antmcwatt@hotmail.co.uk)
Date: Sun May 08 2005 - 21:58:15 BST
Platt stated May 6th:
[Pirsig] says Quality is experience, meaning that valuistic judgment are
intrinsic to experience. What Pirsig asserts is that experience is prior to
your intellectual
conception of a subject with its companion star, object. Think of it this
way: like spirit, experience was around long before you or I or other
"biological organism" became its vessel.
Ham stated May 6th:
I took this to mean that experience is prior to the subject of experience,
which would make it non-proprietary and universal. I do believe experience
to be contingent on an observer and an object, as do most other non-MOQers.
I also believe Quality to be a valuistic assessment of experience, (ditto
non-MOQers).
Platt replied May 6th:
Why do you find it necessary to call the MOQ a "cultist belief system?"
That seems to be a gratuitous put down to some rather intelligent people.
Ham stated May 6th:
I'm sorry if it seems gratuitous, but everything I've seen relating to the
MOQ and its followers strongly suggests that it is a cult movement. It
leans heavily to the liberal left (with a Harley as its rebel trademark),
Ant McWatt comments:
Firstly, in ZMM, the narrator/Phaedrus rides a Honda motorcycle which is the
epitome of high engineering quality, personal freedom and being Dynamically
involved with your environment (rather than it being just a symbol of
rebelliousness). If the MOQ Discuss members appear to leaning to the
liberal left I think that it’s only because these Buddhist orientated ideas
of the MOQ are of generally higher quality than right-wing political ideas.
Essentially, this is because the former takes a wider, global view of all of
humanity (i.e. selfless orientated) while the latter is usually more
concerned with promoting just the material interests of a minority (i.e.
self/selfish orientated). Furthermore, as I have noted to Platt previously,
the trick is not to be too hung up on supporting any one particular ideology
(such as capitalism or socialism) but to take a step back and pragmatically
assess the merits of each political system. Hence, Pirsig’s attempt to
combine capitalism’s use of free markets (in the social realm) with
socialism’s emphasis on economic intellectual control and sense of fairness.
Secondly, I think the MOQ can be seen as a framework to increase the beauty
in the world, whether this is in works of art, high quality engineering,
architecture or better personal/political relationships. Like any human
invention it is relatively ham fisted but is arguably the best overview we
presently have to push all aspects of life in the right direction. You
might think terming the essential substance or “spiritual play-doh” of
reality “Quality” is a mark of a cult movement though I rather see it as a
pragmatic compromise between theism (too supernatural and anti-scientific)
and materialism (too nihilistic and aesthetically empty). Beauty (and
ugliness) in this world can be directly experienced, a God in heaven can’t.
It also seems reasonable to me that this essential “substance” (of beauty
and other values) was creating the universe a long time before there were
any human beings around to measure them and divide them into subjects and
objects (or good and bad). Moreover, the MOQ is an over-arching system that
examines how science, art and spirituality can complement (and work with)
each other to produce a better quality world.
Ham stated May 6th:
…caters to the secularist elite,
Ant McWatt comments:
Well, this being the case I don’t see how this squares with calling the MOQ
a cult system. Nearly all the fundamentalist weirdoes in the world seem to
be both right-wing and either Christian or Muslim. As such, your system of
essentialism is definitely closer to being cultish. I’m sorry to state this
(as you have obviously put in a lot of hard work with your system and your
website) but I think it’s incredible to think that the MOQ system is a cult
system in comparison to Essentialism.
Ham continued May 6th:
…and is supported by a cadre of RMP-quoting loyalists who see that their
reclusive leader's pronouncements are the last word on every subject.
Ant McWatt comments:
I think there have been very few ideas in ZMM and LILA that have not been
questioned on this Forum (and elsewhere) since 1997. The MOQ is very much a
small voice in the philosophical world so if people like me seem to be
“loyalist”, this is to provide a balance to many of the critiques that are
put forward here every week and from the occasional academic (such as Galen
Strawson).
I think there is so much low quality philosophy in and outside universities:
lifeless, boring, uninspiring, out-dated and obscure nonsense that a
Dynamic, inspirational, wide-ranging and contemporary system such as the MOQ
deserves strong support. I highly doubt that a physics professor such as
Henry Gurr (who runs the ZMM trip website) would state that Pirsig and Owen
Barfield are two of the few modern philosophers that have any relevance as
regards modern physics/science. Moreover, if you read the section in LILA
about the written slips (in trays) which were used to build up the MOQ
organically, it is clear that this dialectical process between positive and
negative viewpoints improves a system. Pure praise or pure criticism
doesn’t work as effectively.
Ham continued May 6th:
I certainly don't question anyone's intelligence; in fact, I've been awed by
the analytical brilliance and philosophical knowledge exhibited by this
group. One would wish, however, that some of this brainpower might be
applied to original ideas outside of the MOQ domain, rather than trying to
force-fit them into its rigid framework.
Ant McWatt comments:
So, on the one hand, you state the MOQ is too rigid yet you also state in
various posts elsewhere that Pirsig never formalised it enough. That
strikes me as contradictory. Anyway, just to nail down this desire of yours
to see the MOQ as a formal thesis, I don’t know what you think my Ph.D. is
but isn’t this such a thesis? If it isn’t, why exactly? Moreover, beauty
or Quality or enlightenment is not something that can be completely “nailed
down”/defined in the formal sense that you seem to require. There comes a
point where you have to stop discussing and analysing these things and start
experiencing them Dynamically e.g. to stop talking about beauty (as an art
historian) and to start trying to paint beautifully (as an artist).
Yours very much Qualitatively,
Anthony.
“We were talking...
about the space between us all
and the people
who hide themselves behind a wall
of illusion
never glimpse the truth
until it's far too late...
when they pass away.....
We were talking about the love we all could share
when we find it...
to try our best to hold it there
(with our love)
With our love we could save the world,
If they only knew.......
Try to realise it’s all within yourself
no one else can make you change,
And to see you're really only very small
and life goes on within you
and without you.
We were talking
about the love that’s gone so cold
And the people
who gain the world and lose their soul
they don’t know
they can’t see..
Are you one of them?
When you've seen beyond yourself
then you may find peace of mind is waiting there
And the time will come when you see
we're all one and life goes on within you and without you.”
(George Harrison, 1967)
_________________________________________________________________
Winks & nudges are here - download MSN Messenger 7.0 today!
http://messenger.msn.co.uk
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 May 08 2005 - 22:03:45 BST