[MD] Waiter, I don't think this Quality is any Good

[John Carl]

Platt,

I certainly am not suggesting that anyone be excluded from the discussion.
I am an inclusivity-oriented guy.

I'm just a bit befuddled about how anybody could have the slightest interest
in discussing the MoQ, who doesn't believe in Quality.  It's like getting
your panties in a twist in a religious discussion when you don't believe in
God.

I was hoping to engage them, not exclude yhem

Meanwhile, I came across an interesting quote in a Scott Peck book, People
of the Lie, that I'd like to share:

"I've often been asked in my practice as a psychotherapist, Doctor, 'why is
there evil in the world?'  But in all my years I've never been asked, 'why
is there good?'   It is as if we automatically assume this is a naturally
good world that has somehow been contaminated by evil.  In terms of what we
know of science, however, it is actually easier to explain evil.  That
things decay is quite explainable in accord with the natural laws of
physics.  That life should evolve into more and more complex forms is not so
easily understandable.... Laziness is more the rule than diligence.  If we
seriously think about it, it probably makes more sense to assume this is a
naturally evil world that has somehow been mysteriously contaminated by
goodness, rather than the other way around.  The mystery of goodness is even
greater than the mystery of evil."

I believe you can discuss the mystery of goodness without falling into a
cult.

Cults are evil, by definition.

John

On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 5:27 AM, <plattholden at gmail.com> wrote:

> John,
>
> There are contributors to this site who don't believe in Quality who have
> plenty of interesting things to say. So far as I know the only requirement
> for participation is having read ZAMM and Lila. To restrict the
> conversation just to true believers would turn the MOQ into a cult, an
> accusation that is already too frequently voiced.
>
> Regards,
> Platt
>
>
>
>
> On 10 Jan 2010 at 10:31, John Carl wrote:
>
> > Platt,
> >
> > I agree that going over basic assumptions is a highly valued intellectual
> > activity, otherwise, what is a metaphysics discussion even about?
> >
> > But I do think going on and on in subsequent directions of discussion,
> > without addressing the basic conflicts is a kind of waste of time.
> >
> > I mean, what is there to discuss if you don't believe in Quality?
> >
> > How to spell "Schopenhauer"?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > John
> >
> > On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 6:57 AM, Platt Holden <plattholden at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hey John,
> > >
> > > I don't consider challenging basic assumptions to be a waste of time.
> In
> > > fact, to me that's what philosophy is all about. For example, Pirsig's
> MOQ
> > > challenges the basic assumption that the world is divided into subjects
> and
> > > objects. Many philosophies challenge the assumption of scientific
> > > materialism. Such challenges can generate new ideas and broader
> > > understanding.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Platt
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>