Marco and MFs
Marco wrote
>I dare suggest a new procedure, just as matter of discussion:
>
>1) Create a permanent and dynamic "to do" list.
That can be done in seconds by putting the existing list on
the website.
>2) Create a matching "done" list, including the month's conclusions. As
>there's no one only truth, the conclusions can be more than one.
There tend to be schools of thought on each problem. We can identify
a handful of key problems and for each one there are probably 2 or 3
answers that we see over and over again. It's not perfect latching but
it's a way of dealing with things.
>3) Every month the discussion facilitator will choose the argument from
>the "to do" list. It will be communicated with a 15/20 days advance, so
>that it will be possible for the people to search for good arguments.
I think we need to work on the "to do" list first. Some of the points are
really the same problem or stem from a single basic problem.
If you look at the trouble list and break it down, there really aren't that
many basic problems. You've got the definitions of the levels, but that's
more a problem of greater detail and refinement. The Indian section is
weak IMO but it doesn't affect the rest of the book. Those that say there's
no such thing as the SOM are just demonstrating their own ignorance.
Anyway it was answered when it was topic of the month and I've yet to
see anyone challenge that. I think the only problem is that Pirsig
didn't explain it enough. If you've already read Descartes then it's obvious,
but not everyone has. The emotivism charge is more subtle, but again that
just needs clarification.
I tend to agree with Bo that the only serious problem is the elusive "self".
There shouldn't be a self in the MOQ, yet clearly there is, or else what's
he talking about in the free will section? Bobby Dillon's trouble list cut
right to the heart of it.
>4) New suggestions will be added to the "to do" list only if they are
>reputed: a) interesting, by at least a certain number of persons (5?);
>and b) relevant and innovative by the facilitator(s).
>5) Of course the "done" list must not be static forever, so new
>suggestions can be offered in order to argue old conclusions. But only
>in case of doubts or new facts.
>6) The "done" list should be available on the site not only ordered by
>date, but also organized in "macro" areas.
These are fine, but I would suggest working on the to do list to break it
down into manageable sections first, sort out the problems from the
symptoms, and then let the logical sequence of discussion suggest itself.
Diana
>QUALITY = MORALITY = REALITY
>
>1.1 Pirsig shows that morality is a type of quality, but this does not mean
>that the opposite is always true.
>
>1.2 Pirsig has proven that quality is real. However, that quality is reality
>itself has been left almost totally unsupported.
>
>1.3 Pirsig has previously made it quite clear that patterns of static
>quality can all be placed within the four levels of the MoQ, but he also
>says that morality operates between the levels. Thus morality seems to be
>quite different from patterns of quality and it's a contradiction to say
>that quality and morality are the same thing.
>
>1.4 For a conception to exist there has to be a counterconcept (ie, for
>there to be Good there must also be "not Good", for there to be moral, there
>has to be immoral), but there are no counterconcepts to
>Quality/Morality/Reality.
>
>
>QUALITY AND DYNAMIC QUALITY
>
>2.1 Pirsig doesn't adequately distinguish between Quality and Dynamic
>Quality
>
>
>DYNAMIC AND STATIC QUALITY
>
>3.1 The various descriptions, definitions and examples of Dynamic and static
>quality aren't consistent with each other.
>
>
>THE LEVELS
>
>4.1 The levels are not defined well.
>
>4.2 There is no rational way to resolve same-level conflicts.
>
>4.3 Pirsig does not explain well how levels emerge out of underlying levels.
>
>4.4 The rational morality doesn't consider matters of degree. Eg, a forestry
>corporation may be more moral than a log, but is it more moral than the
>entire rainforest?
>
>4.5 The MoQ states that a higher level "trumps" a lower level, but has a
>duty to preserve the lower level. Thus, both sides of any moral conflict can
>always be argued with equal support from the MoQ.
>
>4.6 Using the levels as a moral guide can only work if we have complete
>information about an issue, but, as this is impossible, then the moral code
>is impractical.
>
>4.7 Pirsig's levels aren't entirely consistent with the way neurologists
>tell us the brain actually works.
>
>4.8 Quality is just what you like, so the MOQ's morality is emotivism
>
>4.9 The MoQ reduces all good to the good of utility.
>
>
>EVOLUTION
>
>5.1 RMP's definition of evolution is not in agreement with conventional
>science. Evolutionary biologists do not rank humans above bacteria on any
>evolutionary scale.
>
>5.2 LILA claims in various parts that Quality is the source, the track of
>evolution, and the goal. That breaks down to "Quality evolves from itself,
>towards itself on a track of Quality." This is a very difficult position to
>explain. I believe Pirsig once explained that reality evolves from
>"low-quality" to "high-quality", but this explanation raises (at least) as
>many problems as the original position.
>
>
>FREE WILL
>
>6.1 Pirsig's explanation of free will is flawed because in order to have
>free will you must have a subject, or else who's "will" is it that is free?
>
>
>SELF
>
>7.1 Pirsig doesn't explain how an individual being, a self, fits into the
>MOQ.
>
>7.2 If we operate from the belief that there is no such thing as the self,
>and that Quality or Reality is one undifferentiated continuum, then the
>question of choice, freedom, good and morality does not arise.
>
>7.3 If there is no self and the MOQ is reduced to being only a "feel good"
>Metaphysics of Mysticism then evolution in all respects should follow a
>linear progression by itself, without any setbacks or reversals since DQ as
>an evolving force is complete and fully present at all times.
>
>7.4 Since all conceptions, beliefs and their counters are aspects of
>perception can "static patterns of value" have any existence outside
>perception?
>
>
>SPACE-TIME
>
>8.1 The MOQ describes an evolutionary process which appears to take place
>within fixed parameters of space and time, yet we know from physics that
>space-time is not fixed in this way.
>
>
>THEM PESKY INJUNS
>
>9.1 The conjecture that Indians had some huge influence on American thought
>is never supported well.
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:29 BST