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

[plattholden at gmail.com]

John, 

I guess we're talking past it each. When you write Quality with a capital 
Q I assume you're referring to Pirsig's metaphysics. I think anyone can 
discuss his metaphysics without believing a word of it, just as anyone 
can discuss the Bible without buying its message. But, when it comes to 
"goodness" one can hardly deny it without at the same time admitting 
his denial is good (right, true, valid, etc).So yes. We "can discuss the 
mystery of goodness without falling into a cult." It's just that Pirsig's 
goodness stemming from competing moral levels may be less appealing 
to some than, say, Plato's goodness stemming from Beauty.. After all, 
Pirsig is not the only one who has important things to say about reality.

Regards,
Platt

On 11 Jan 2010 at 8:21, John Carl wrote:

> 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