[MD] Tit's

[MarshaV]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ham Priday" <hampday1 at verizon.net>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2008 1:10 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Tit's


>
> Dear Marsha [re: Krimel's slant]--
>
>
>> In recent years our understanding and control of the external world have 
>> increased enormously.  There has been a remarkable increase in material 
>> progress.  I grant you that.   Yet there has not been a similar increase 
>> in human happiness.  There is no less suffering in the world.  There are 
>> no fewer problems.  If anything there is more suffering and more 
>> unhappiness than ever.  I think there is a basic flaw in the way we 
>> understand the world.  And that is where I believe the MOQ's value lies. 
>> It's in a new understanding of the world.  Where science is certainly 
>> beautiful, it is changing the conceptual framework that the West most 
>> needs.
>
> An accurate analysis of the present state of mankind, diplomatically 
> stated.
>
> However, I think you're being too kind to Krimel by overlooking his 
> existential ontogeny which is antagonistic to the MOQ.  Consider these 
> statements, for example:
>
> [Krimel]:
>> I do indeed think that mind arises from matter. I regard life as an 
>> emergent
>> property of matter. I regard "mind" as an emergent property of life.
>> I have stated so many times that I am perfectly willing to call my 
>> personal acceptance of this view a "skip of faith".
>>
>> I would say that materialism, in a broad sense of the term, provides a
>> monism that, as it is being pursued by science, offers a fairly
>> comprehensive view of the life the universe and everything. Thousands of
>> the brightest and best in a wide variety of disciplines over the past 400 
>> years have united in the task of providing explanations of how and why
>> we are here. I see no serious flaws in either the approaches being used, 
>> the assumptions being made or the results that pour forth from them.
>>
>> Nor do I think the MoQ is in conflict with this view. In fact I would say
>> the MoQ supports and enhances it. Consider even the secondary issue of
>> levels in the MoQ.  We begin as does science with the inorganic level. 
>> Within science this level of physics and chemistry was the first to yield 
>> its
>> secrets and the best understood.
>
> Pirsig never presented his Quality thesis as materialism, and I believe he 
> would be distressed to see it represented as such.  Surely you can see 
> that Krimel wants to replace DQ with the materialistic monism of science, 
> arguing that it is a "comprehensive view of life, the universe, 
> everything", is supported by "thousands of the brightest people...for over 
> 400 years," and "has no serious flaws."
>
> Krimel's attempt to portray the MOQ as an "enhancement" of scientific 
> objectivism is disingenuous, to put it kindly.  "We begin as science does 
> with the inorganic level," he says, yet Pirsig's ontogeny begins with 
> Quality = Value, improvising "the secondary issue of levels" as his 
> metaphoric hypothesis for the categories or "patterns" of experience.  In 
> Pirsig's philosophy experience is primary to matter.
>
> In short, this long, thoughtfully written essay is an homage to scientific 
> objectivism and its "symbolic representations", and not all representative 
> of the MOQ.  By his admitted "skip of faith" Krimel reintroduces a 
> perspective that is neither SOM nor Quality-based, but is the very 
> ideology that Pirsig spent a lifetime trying to rise above -- namely, the 
> positivists' objectivism which stands in opposition to the Quality thesis.
>
> I'd be interested to hear your thoughts, Marsha.  Am I being too hard on 
> the Krim, or am I simply evaluating his statement from my own 
> essentialistic viewpoint?
>
> Regards,
> Ham


Greetings Ham,

In the MOQ there are no things-in-themselves.  Yet RMP has written "The MOQ 
is not opposed to materialism as long is it is understood that materialism 
is a set of ideas." (Copleston paper)  The most important point is that 
"materialism is a set of ideas."  Conceptual patterns.  It's all a set of 
ideas.  ALL.  Analogues, every last bit.  I wonder if Krimel would agree 
with this.

That science "has no serious flaws" statement is ridiculous.  Krimel is so 
smart, I cannot accept that he believes this.

The paper is beautifully written.  He deserves credit for that.  But then it 
was written to dmb, and I should have waited for David to reply.   Sorry. 
Anytime I can stress that it's all patterns (conceptual), I cannot resist. 
Patterns, patterns, patterns, patterns, patterns, patterns, patterns, 
patterns, patterns...   Interconnected patterns.

Marsha