From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Sat Jun 12 2004 - 15:16:02 BST
Hi Paul, all
Great to hear from you, a sweet voice of reason. :-)
> Rand:
> My philosophy, Objectivism, holds that:
> 1. Reality exists as an objective absolute
>
> Paul:
> Whereas in the MOQ, it is only inorganic and biological patterns that
> are described as 'objective.' The 'absolute reality' is described as
> value which precedes and creates subjective and objective reality as
> static patterns.
Agree. All those who believe there are no absolutes, take note. From Lila,
Chap. 5: "But that the quality is low is absolutely certain. It is the
primary empirical reality from which such things as stoves and heat and
oaths and self are later intellectually constructed."
> Rand:
> ...facts are facts, independent of man's feelings, wishes, hopes or
> fears.
>
> Paul:
> Whereas in the MOQ, 'facts' are described as subjective social and
> intellectual patterns of value - as are feelings, wishes, hopes and
> fears - and are therefore never independent of man.
About feelings or emotions, Pirsig says: "The MOQ sees emotions as a
biological response to quality and not the same thing as quality." (Lila's
child, note 141.)
> Rand:
> 2. Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material
> provided by man's senses)
>
> Paul:
> Whereas in the MOQ, it is pre-intellectual value which identifies and
> integrates the material provided by man's senses.
>
> "Value is the predecessor of structure. It's the pre-intellectual
> awareness that gives rise to it. Our structured reality is pre-selected on
> the basis of value, and really to understand structured reality requires an
> understanding of the value source from which it's derived." [ZMM p.291]
Agree. But this quote does not deny that structure (the integration of
sense data) isn't created post-value by static emotional and intellectual
patterns.
> Rand:
> [Reason] is man's only means of perceiving reality
>
> Paul:
> Whereas in the MOQ, the pre-intellectual perception of reality as values
> precedes reason.
Yes.
> Rand:
> [Reason is] his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his
> basic means of survival.
>
> Paul:
> I think the MOQ supports Rand in that the application of reason
> generally improves intellectual quality and therefore improves
> intellectual knowledge and that high quality intellectual patterns are a
> good guide to action. However, I think the MOQ denies that reason is the
> *source* of knowledge, the *only* guide to action and that it is the basic
> means of survival.
> In the MOQ, it is value that is all of these things, not reason.
Debatable. To instinctively know that some things are better than others
does not assure man's survival. He must understand cause/effect fairly
well to survive in a dangerous environment.
> Rand:
> 3. Man - every man - is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of
> others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to
> others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational
> self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his
> life.
>
> Paul:
> According to the MOQ, from a static point of view, the highest moral
> purpose of a man's life is to pursue and evolve intellectual quality.
What about the moral purpose of pursuing the higher quality "code of art?"
> The pursuit of self-interest (rational or not) sounds like a
> biological-social goal which, within the MOQ framework, makes Rand's
> suggestion an immoral one.
>
> From a Dynamic point of view, static patterns are extinguished leaving
> neither a fixed goal to pursue nor a self to indulge.
I don't see how one can pursue the "highest moral purpose of an man's
life" without having a "self-interest." Who or what is doing the pursuing
if not a individual self?
> Based on the quotes you provided, I agree with your conclusion that Rand is
> incompatible with Pirsig. I also agree that the intellectual level would
> not be better named as the 'individual level.'
I agree Rand isn't fully compatible with the MOQ. I have never claimed it
was. As for the better name for the intellectual level, it comes down to
making the distinction between the social and intellectual levels on
different basis than Pirsig's. His distinction is the force of tradition
vs creative thought. Mine is the power of the collective vs. freedom of
the individual. You pays your money and takes your choice.
Best regards,
Platt
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 : Sat Jun 12 2004 - 15:14:06 BST