[MD] MOQ and the Future: An Inquiry into Usefulness

[Ham Priday]

Greetings, Mark --



> I have no doubt that MOQ can be made to be logically sound.
> Each time a question or possibility is raised, added structure can
> be included to cover such disputes. What I do have doubts about
> is whether the system put together by MOQ has any usefulness.
> Given that any number of metaphysical systems can be formed,
> usefulness can become an important discriminatory tool.

You raise an important question, and it will be interesting to see how the 
Pirsigians respond.  Personally, I'm not convinced that a philosophy can or 
should be "useful" in the utilitarian sense.  Metaphysics, which is the 
basis for most classical philosophy, is necessarily theoretical and cannot 
be validated empirically.  Except for offering a conceptual hypothesis that 
may allow a certain paradigm of reality to take shape in the philosopher's 
mind, philosophy can't be "used" to achieve a given result or objective. 
Unlike logic,  mathematics, or chemistry, for example, philosophy cannot be 
applied directly to the solution of "practical" problems.

> MOQ contains the speculation of evolution. It also contains the
> possibility of discrete levels which form. Finally MOQ seems to
> indicate a positive direction in its nature. Evolution in the traditional
> sense was used to describe the interplay between species and the
> environment. Species evolved to meet the demands of the
> environment and were thus able to occupy niches of existence.
> If MOQ were to be classified as evolutionary, it must be evolving to
> meet the needs of some environment. I have not been able to find
> details of the pressures on Quality which enable its evolution.
> What is causing Quality to evolve.

Evolution is only "speculation" if it is posited as a fundamental principle 
of reality.  Otherwise, it is the precept of a series of events (usually of 
a biological nature) leading to the world we experience as the present.  Of 
course we can also talk about civilization, science, technology, and the 
arts as evolutionary developments, although "evolution of the species" is 
really the source of such non-biological references.  Also, rather than 
"evolving to meet the demands of the environment,"  I think it is more 
correct to say that survival requires that the species adapt to the 
environment.  Survival is a fundamental law or principle of nature, so that 
it's an aspect of teleology which does relate to philosophy.

However, apart from the MoQ thesis, I see no evidence to support the 
"evolution of Quality or Value" as a philosophical principle, unless it 
refers to the individual's development of value-sensibility.  From a 
philosophical standpoint, the concept that Value develops or improves 
chronologically suggests that time is a primary potential or creative 
source, which is metaphysically self-defeating.

> The reason I bring up evolution is that it has been used sociologically
> to explain human behavior. This explanation in turn has been used to
> justify human behavior. With this in mind, I wonder what kind of
> behavior MOQ is promoting. Many in this forum would say that the
> elevation of the societal level above the individual (biological) level
> gives force to the notion that society can be used to control human
> behavior. This indeed is contrary to my own view wherein it is solely
> the individual level that creates society.

I am certainly in agreement with your view, Mark. although I wouldn't 
describe the individual as a "level".
While a society can control human behavior (Socialism is a perfect example), 
it is individuals who create the collective society.

> Another pitfall of MOQ is the claim that the so called intellectual
> level is superior to the psycho-emotional level. I would postulate
> that the intellectual level can serve to sometimes modulate the
> psycho-emotional level, but it is by no means the controlling factor
> in the human experience. Indeed, I have come to believe that the
> intellectual level is but one manifestation of the psycho-emotional.
> What we think about is controlled by our entire sensibility and
> cannot be separated from the rest as a separate level.

Intellect is the analytical or reasoning function of human thinking, not a 
generic level.  One may use the intellect to override emotion and thus act 
more rationally.  I would suggest that individual consciousness is a 
tri-part functionality -- psycho/emotional/intellectual -- in which the 
"psyche" is self-awareness with its (value) sensibility, emotions are 
somatic responses to sensory experience, and intellection is the abstraction 
or conceptualization of ideas derived from experience.

> So, what do you think is the future impact of MOQ?

I'm sure you will understand why I feel obliged to recuse myself here.  As 
an "outsider", I would prefer to hear the MoQists' position on this question 
rather than bias their answers.  (I may have some comments when they've had 
an opportunity to respond.)

A thoughful post, Mark.  Let's see what it produces.

Best regards,
Ham