RE: MD Access to Quality

From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun May 15 2005 - 18:40:02 BST

  • Next message: Matt Kundert: "RE: MD Access to Quality"

    Mark, Matt and all MOQers:

    matt said to msh:
    your second stage is to argue that a "fully realized human being" would find

    personal liberty immediately accessible. My first softening up move will be

    to point out that not everybody believes in Quality, as you say they do. To

    say that they do is to make the same move the theist does when they say that

    God exists whether particular people believe in Him or not.

    msh replied:
    Uh, no. I think Pirsig makes it pretty clear than everyone makes a
    hundred quality decisions a day. This is why belief in Quality is
    empirical and belief in God is not.

    dmb says:
    The same move as the theist? What kind of intellectual tone-deafness does it
    take to produce that conclusion?! Pirsig builds the MOQ around the most
    basic kind of experience, one we all know intimately every day; that some
    things are better than others. Theism asserts the existence of a
    supernatural being based on faith, not experience.

    matt continued:
    The only way to "believe in Quality" is to first have read Pirsig's books
    (which not everyone has) and then to have been persuaded by them (which even
    fewer people have been). To say otherwise is to make the same kind of
    appearance/reality distinguishing move that Plato gave us, where
    Quality/God/whatever is there whether we like it or not.

    dmb says:
    I'd be very interested to see if you'll take msh up on his offer "to go over
    the parts of ZMM where (Mark) believe(s) this is made quite clear." He'd
    "be happy to do that." I'll be holding my breath. A few words until then...
    If we move beyond the basic experience of betterness and move onto the MOQ,
    move on to Pirsig's brand of philosophical mysticism, then I agree with
    Matt. The only proper way to become a subscriber is to read, understand and
    be persuaded by the books that explain it. Duh! But this is not a matter of
    faith and one could say the same thing about any point of view so
    represented in books. So what? The point is that some perspectives are based
    on experience, evidence and some kind of logic. Others are not. The failure
    to distinguish between the two strikes me as some kind of philosophical
    disability or impairment. And if this is, in effect, the assertion that no
    one can make that distinction, then I would reject that assertion for being
    unwise, nihilistic and paralyzing. Plus it DEFIES experience and common
    sense.

    msh said:
    Matt, at this point I need to snip four or five or six long
    paragraphs of philosophology. I enjoy reading these academic
    diversions, but I personally am really far more interested in knowing
    what we living beings are thinking, at our common end-point of
    evolution. I think we should be able to explain our thoughts without
    reference to others, unless we are asked for historical.academic
    support for our opinions.

    dmb says:
    Yea, Matt. Don't you know that philosophological diversions make baby Jesus
    cry? Why are you so mean to sweet little babies, you monster?

    But seriously, it does tend to get a little thick with jargon and
    name-dropping, all of which gives your posts a verneer of sophistication,
    but after jumping through all those hoops you end up coming to the
    conclusion that the MOQ is not different from theism. After all that fancy
    footwork, you end up with a decidely unsophisticated conclusion, one that
    reactionaries will just love. There is a certain consensus reality that we
    all share as contemporary, educated Westerners which you seem to dismiss in
    favor of whatever joe schmoe thinks. Sure, our reality depends on history
    and context, but I'm saying that we share that history and cultural context
    well enough to find such lines, to make such distinctions. We all speak
    english and walk on two legs. And we don't need metaphysical absolutes or
    Platonic forms to assert these things, you broken record of a philsopher,
    you.

    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 15 2005 - 18:48:06 BST