[MD] The relativity of the MoQ

[plattholden at gmail.com]

On 30 Aug 2009 at 14:53, Andre Broersen wrote:

> Platt to Andre:
> You want a quote from Pirsig?. Read this, then tell us what you read
> between the lines.
> "My personal feeling is that this is how any further
> improvement of the world will be done: by individuals making
> Quality decisions and that?s all. God, I don?t want to have any
> more enthusiasm for big programs full of social planning for
> big masses of people that leave individual Quality out... etc etc
> 
> Andre:
> Two points Platt:
> 1) this solution is from the narrator (a boring, social level guy who hasn't
> had a new idea in years...[ these are Pirsig's words!]. Still...what it does
> say!!! that if we all, individually, point our noses into the quality
> direction we'll get somewhere eh? Sounds like a pretty collective effort we
> are directed towards in our efforts at 'improvement of the world'. Not all
> this individual freedom stuff based on John Locke's ideas you constantly go
> back to. Just to be clear Platt: I am not advocating everybody thinking and
> doing the same thing. What I am suggesting is an individual complement
> towards harmony...towards One.
> Not a singular One but a multy-facetted One (as in many different notes
> making up a symphony). As far as I can understand your 'freedom' is that the
> symphony in my metaphor will never get written. Each note will simply be
> going on on its own carried by its own individual lonely self.

Andre, how will your improved harmonious One be different than today's 
One. For instance, will all competition be eliminated in your One? The 
more specifics you can give us, the better we'll understand your vision. 

> 2) ZMM clearly shows that Phaedrus went 'a different path' (p352).'He felt
> that the solution started...- with a new spiritual rationality- in which the
> ugliness and the loneliness and the spiritual blankness of dualistic
> technological reason would become illogical'.

> Once again Platt, I cannot see your notion of individualism and freedom (the
> political one's you are espousing here on this philosophic forum) to even
> come close to this suggested solution of Phaedrus.

In an interview with Tim Adams three years ago, Pirsig identified 
Phaedrus:

"One thing people don't know is that the book (ZAMM) was completed 
and ready to send in when I thought there were too many I's.in this book. 
I needed another character. So: Phaedrus. He did not appear until the 
book was written." 

In other words, Pirsig and Phaedrus are the same person.  

> Platt:
> I would call it the perfection of mystical individual thinking. There's no
> such thing as "communal thinking." Only zombies and robots all think
> alike.
> 
> Andre:
> See my comment above. ..and many an individual mystical 'thinking' arrives
> at one, and only one conclusion, and that is that All is One.

As I understand it, the mystical conclusion that "All is One" is the same 
as Pirsig's "pre-intellectual experience," namely that ultimate reality is 
not divided or differentiated in any way. However, we (and all living 
creatures) cannot survive without dividing reality into life/death, 
good/bad, friend/enemy, etc. Do you agree?  

> Platt:
> But the toughest battle you'll ever have is to be yourself against the
> demands of others to be something else.
> 
> Andre:
> This is what I mean by your notion of individuality and freedom Platt. You
> see it as a BATTLE against your fellow wo/man. It really reminds me of
> Pirsig's example of Chris with his YMCA camp experience. You seem to be
> setting ego against ego whilst I would suggest individual selves with
> differences...on the same road to Quality, Harmony, the One. The ego doesn't
> permit this.

You appear to suggest there should be no difference of opinion between
your ego and mine. In your goal of a harmonious One how will 
differences
be resolved peacefully other than by agreed upon social patterns and 
the
legal system now in place? 

My basic question to you Andre is what do you see as negative about 
individual liberty so long as government protects people from other 
people initiating physical force -- the proper role of the military and 
police? For example, do you favor the free market like Pirsig does?

Regards,
Platt