[MD] WHY MoQ IS PARALYzED

[Ron Kulp]

The point is

That our intellectual thoughts are dictated by grammar. When we question
the structure of reality we question the structure of thought which is
the structure of grammar. This is the significance.
goD, Quality, essence, all of it.

source is in the infinite now I am immersed in.




s/o is grammatical structure.
Self/other is a noun class.

We intellectualize using this structure of rules of description
We have a hard time with abstract thinking outside of it.

-Ron




-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of Ham Priday
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 3:45 AM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] WHY MoQ IS PARALYzED

Hi Ian, Ron [Marsha mentioned] --

 [Ian]:
> It's all language and all language is metaphors (dead or alive)
> - you can approach understanding by using it but never
> arrive at a destination called definition.

[Ron]:
> Since SoM only deals with concrete terms MoQ ventures into,
> co-habitates and emerges within SoM principles.

[Marsha]:
> It's all analogy, every last bit of it.  So what is an
> analogy?  No-thing.  Inside and outside, it's
> no-thing.  Individual=Subjective=no-thing.

Are linguistics and metaphors all that the MoQ is cracked up to be?
If that's so, then how can anyone take it seriously?  Why bother to 
understand it?

I for one believe that Pirsig was on to something of philosophical 
significance, but never quite achieved his goal.  Definitions are
important, 
although not everything lends itself to a proper definition.  On the
other 
hand, refusing to define a fundamental term or principle used throughout
a 
philosophical thesis is suspect.  I've said many times that the essence
of 
philosophy is the concept, not the word(s) used to define it.

Quality as value, moral goodness, or worthiness works well as primary 
sensibility, and I believe Pirsg was correct in his epistemology of 
experience.  The problem is that experience is proprietary to an
individual, 
hence cannot be assumed to be the fundamental reality.  Whatever 'DQ' is

supposed to represent cannot logically be quality or value as these
terms 
are universally understood.  Had the author not felt metaphysics too 
"restrictive" to his theory, he might well have come up with a less 
conditional (and problematic) term for his all-encompassing source.

Postmodernists deplore referring to 'God' as the primary source; yet the

name is a contraction of 'Good' which is equivalent to Pirsig's Quality.

Even Richard Dawkins, author of "the God Delusion", admitted to the 
possibility of a transcendent "intelligence" existing beyond the range
of 
present human experience.  St. Anselm defined God as "a being than which
no 
greater can be conceived."  The 10th century Arabian philosopher Ibn
'Adi 
postulated that since every definition mirrors an essence, God must also
be 
one in essence.  Five centuries later, Cusanus theorized that reason, 
plurality, and multitude allude to a unity to which neither otherness
nor 
multiplicity is opposed.  He called this unity The Infinite.  I've stuck

with Essence.

My point is that we all crave an answer to the enigma of existence
beyond 
factual knowledge, and unless we are nihilists who believe that life is
an 
accident of nature, most of us hold out for a transcendent source.  That

Pirsig chose to include DQ in his thesis demonstrates that he did, too. 
Let's not
be such skeptics that we reject the insight and understanding that 
philosophy  offers us.  If. indeed, the MoQ is "paralyzed", why not 
determine the faults and fix it?  Surely the author would prefer this to

skepticism.

Essentially yours,
Ham


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/