[MD] Christendom's place in the MOQ

[Ham Priday]

Mel --


> Ham,
>
> Not to step between you and Khoo, but
> where do you see what you allege in
> the MoQ? (below)
 <snip>
> Ham:
> In short, the MoQ dismisses the essential
> nature of  the individual which is that of a
> free, value-sensible agent.

I quote the following from A. McWatt's "Critical Analysis of Robert Pirsig's 
Metaphysics
of Quality" which is generally regarded as the authoritative interpretation 
of the MoQ:

"As a metaethics, the MOQ is a type of ethical intuitionist moral realism in 
the sense that it holds that there are irreducible moral properties which 
are real and that, on occasion,
an intuitive awareness of them is possible (as indicated by the MOQ's code 
of Art
elucidated in Section 2.7.2.). As such, this indicates the MOQ is not 
...ethical subjectivist moral realism (which holds that moral statements are 
rendered true or false by the attitudes and/or conventions of observers)... 
.
As such, the whole universe is perceived by Pirsig as being a moral order:
'Because Quality is morality. Make no mistake about it. They're identical.
And if Quality is the primary reality of the world then that means morality 
is
also the primary reality of the world. The world is primarily a moral order.
(Pirsig, 1991, p.100)'"

"'For scientists, the mind of the Buddha and the Mind of God are usually the
same, even though the Buddha was an atheist. I think it is extremely 
important
to emphasize that the MOQ is pure empiricism. There is nothing supernatural
in it. (Pirsig, 2000e)'

"Though there's no atman (soul) in the MOQ, a sense of responsibility for 
one's
actions remains because the MOQ recognises that our present behaviour has an 
affect
on other people (as observed in environmental effects such as global 
warming) and
will have effects on subsequent generations (such as the radioactive waste 
produced
by nuclear industry).
"If anything, the soul (in the MOQ) can be loosely regarded as purely the 
intellect and survives an individual's death through books, rituals, 
folklore and, more latterly, electronic media."

"'I believe there are number of philosophic systems, notably Ayn Rand's 
'Objectivism,'
that call the 'I' or 'individual' the central reality. Buddhists say it is 
an illusion. So
do scientists. The MOQ says it is a collection of static patterns capable of
apprehending Dynamic Quality.' (Pirsig, 2002h, p.533)"

"'Descartes' 'I think therefore I am' was a historically shattering 
declaration
of independence of the intellectual level of evolution from the social level 
of
evolution, but would he have said it if he had been a seventeenth century
Chinese philosopher? If he had been, would anyone in seventeenth century
China have listened to him and called him a brilliant thinker and recorded 
his
name in history? If Descartes had said, 'The seventeenth century French
culture exists, therefore I think, therefore I am,' he would have been 
correct.
(Pirsig,1991, p.305)'"

Mel:
> It seems to me that Pirsig worked very hard
> to illustrate that man IS in exactly that position.
>
> Further, your quoted assertion that:
> ("...this leaves us with a philosophy that is
>      flawed by 'the separation of the individual
>      from the universe.' " )

Where is the individual and what is its role in the universe Pirsig 
describes here?

"In the Metaphysics of Quality there's the morality called the 'laws of 
nature,'
by which inorganic patterns triumph over chaos; there is a morality called 
the
'law of the jungle' where biology triumphs over the inorganic forces of
starvation and death; there's a morality where social patterns triumph over
biology, 'the law;' and there is an intellectual morality, which is still 
struggling
in its attempts to control society. Each of these sets of moral codes is no 
more
related to the other than novels are to flip-flops. (Pirsig, 1991, p.162)"

Mel:
> It seems clear to me that in a metaphysic that
> leaves each layer dependent upon each layer
> below it for existence that there can be no
> separation of the individual from the universe.
> Not ever.
>
> The inherent structure of the old, mistaken,
> mind-matter problem left us the appearance of
> separation, but MoQ corrects that.

I would submit that not only is there no "separation of the individual from 
the universe", there is no distinction between them.  The universe is 
described by Pirsig as patterns of inorganic, biological, social, and 
intellectual "morality", and so is the "experiencer".  The MoQ admits to no 
individuality apart from patterns and levels.  Universal Quality is the 
agency, not man or his sensibility.

Thanks, mel.

--Ham