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

[John Carl]

Platt,


> 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."


Your assumption is correct Platt,  When I say "Q"uality, or quality for that
matter, I'm thinking  Pirsig's MoQ.

And yes again, the empirically verifiable metaphysical foundation of reality
is Value.  You can't argue against that without coming up with an argument
for a "better" way of thinking and thus any argument against Value as
absolute, absolutely proves Value.



> 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.
>
>
I also appreciate his perennial brother in absolute value, J. Royce, so I
agree that others have important things to say.  For instance, I came across
an idea of Martin Buber's that I like very much:

For Buber, the fundamental fact of human existence, too readily overlooked
by scientific rationalism and abstract philosophical thought, is "man with
man", a dialogue which takes place in the so-called "sphere of between"


But I would question you more closely on the moral levels "competing".  I
agree that intellectual systems of thought compete, that social systems
compete with each other, biological entities compete, I don't think
inorganic patterns compete much, but mainly I don't think the levels compete
with each other.

I seem to recall a posting of an LC quote by Pirsig that the levels are
discrete.  No matter how social you get, you're not gonna evolve into the
intellectual level anymore than inorganic compounds are gonna evolve into a
chemistry professor.  All evolution of the levels occurs within the levels
discretely, with the upper level being the force for dynamic change on the
lower.

But I could be wrong,

As well as ignorant and stupid and a relative kindergartner,

But if so, I'm sure some caring soul will correct me.

The joy of "the sphere of the between",

John


> 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
>
> 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/
>