Martin Striz (striz@zeus.ezwv.com)
Tue, 10 Feb 1998 04:56:04 +0100
>My problem with trying to explain the MoQ has tended to be with the "so
>what?" question. People never understand why I think the MoQ is
>important. I guess it's because when I came across the MoQ I had already
>decided that the subject-object metaphysics didn't work and I'd already
>explored other world-views or weltbilds (the Germans have the best words
>for these things). The MoQ was the Great Answer to me. But try telling
>friends, hey look I've got the great Answer here, and they'll say, what
>was the question?
>
>Some time ago Bodvar said that he couldn't find a way to explain the MoQ
>without mentioning the subject-object metaphysics first. At the time I
>didn't think so but now I'm starting to see why. In order to convince
>people that you've got a better metaphysics you need to show them that
>there's something wrong with the one they're using first.
As far as examples of what's wrong with the SOM are concerned, that was
the
first project I undertook when I put up my Philosophy of Quality
webpage.
I basically summarized four or five of the platypi mentioned in LILA.
What you said about "Who cares?" is absolutely right. In my long
debates
with Mike Hardie, I found these to be the biggest objections: 1) No one
really believes in a subject-object duality, anyone who knows philosophy
falls into one monism or the other, anyone who doesn't know philosphy
doesn't know about or believe in a subject-object split to begin with.
2)
Your answers are great, but why do we need Quality to explain these
things?
I can explain them thusly... 3) Where is Pirsig's justification for
"quality" being objective and "agreed upon by everyone?" It could be
coincidence, they could be coming from the same backgrounds, they may
just
think similarly; it can be explained hundreds of other ways. 4) You have
to
DEFINE Quality, because in order to talk intelligently about something
and
believe in it, you have to know what you're talking about and believing
in.
It makes no sense to debate the existence of this so-called Quality if
you
don't define. (Classical western rationalist objection.)
Pirsig stood up for the Sophist in ZMM and said they were given a bad
rap
in history because the only one who spoke of them was Plato and he hated
them. It was the Sophist's rhetorical style that Pirsig used in both
his
books. His Chautauquas were like lectures. He wasn't participating in a
dialogue, going through complex syllogisms, and deriving at a "proven"
conclusion. He was saying, "Hey look, I found this great thing called
Quality!" and proceeded to tell us why it was so good based on its
application, its utility, its practicality, etc. You can summarize the
MOQ
in ten or eleven principles, but you may not be able to understand the
full
effect unless you read the 700 pages included in ZMM and LILA. That may
be
the problem.
Perhaps if you start teaching kids from a young age to see things
through
MOQ lenses it won't be a problem. There won't be any static patterns to
break down and the five-year-old may easily understand it. Not so for a
follower of the Church of Reason.
Martin Striz
striz@ezwv.com
"And what is good...and what is not good,
need we ask anyone to tell us these things?"
-- post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:47 CEST