Re: MD MOQ and idealism

Date: Wed Oct 08 2003 - 08:03:30 BST

  • Next message: Paul Turner: "RE: MD MOQ and idealism"

    Paul and All

    3 Oct. You commented:
    > I agree with Dan, this is a key point in Pirsig's thought - explained
    > in detail in ZMM but not so much in Lila which concentrates on the
    > application of the MOQ's evolutionary model to an interpretation of
    > history. Personally, it was when I considered the relationship between
    > idealism and the MOQ that Pirsig's ideas really hit home. I'm not sure
    > how clearly I can explain my understanding but I'll give it a go.
    Oxford's Advanced: "Idealism ...system of thought in which ideas
    are believed to be the only real things of which we can know
    anything." The opposite is realism or materialism and this is another
    facet of the subject/object aggregate. Do we agree on that?
    > I think the relationship between the MOQ and idealism is summed up in
    > the statement Dan quoted from Lila's Child
    > "The MOQ says that Quality comes first, which produces ideas, which
    > produce what we know as matter. The scientific community that has
    > produced Complementarity almost invariably presumes that matter comes
    > first and produces ideas. However, as if to further the confusion, the
    > MOQ says that the idea that matter comes first is a high quality
    > idea!" [Lila's Child p.202]

    In ZMM Phaedrus rejects BOTH idealism and materialism. The
    method by which he tackles materialism is by showing that everything
    is idealist (from the idealist/materialist premises that is). Then he
    rejects idealism by showing that the idealist/materialist divide
    collapses faced with QUALITY.

    Thus the subjective side (ideas) is as invalid as the objective one and
    this is why I am so disappointed by the said annotation. What has
    "ideas" to do in a reality he has rid of the SOM? Why re-introduce the
    very same idealism he had rejected in ZMM? Quality produces the
    idea/non-idea aggregate said in ZMM ..and that is a most
    elegant solution.
    The postulate of Quality coming first I fully accept, but within this
    context the first static "product" is inorganic value ...and so on
    upwards until - as ZMM argues - Quality creates the S/O aggregate
    (subject and objects it says there) which - seen in the light of the
    MOQ - becomes its intellectual level.

    Finally - inside the intellectual reality (SOM) - Phaedrus conceives of
    the Quality Idea ("idea" because intellect only recognises the
    idea/non-idea dichotomy) but it grew too big for intellect and brought
    P. outside the intellectual myth - into insanity.

    This is the kernel of our difference so please stick to it.

    Sincerely Bo

    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    Nov '02 Onward -
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Oct 08 2003 - 08:05:24 BST