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

[Andre Broersen]

Mark to Andre:
Hi Andre,
Thanks for your post. ?I think Squonk is someone else, but I can be Squonk
too.

Andre:
My sincere apologies.

Mark:
The reason I am interested in proposed uses for MOQ, is that
Morality is brought into question. ?If there is a philosophy which
can explain the direction of Morality, I would find it both useful
and dangerous.

Andre:
I am not sure if the MoQ 'explains' the direction of morality Mark. Putting
together the MoQ Pirsig let himself be lead by only one question: 'Which
comes first?' (Chapters 2-8). What it showed Phaedrus was that there
appeared to form itself a squence which hinted at an explanation because it
resolved so many, hithertoo unexplainable paradoxes (platypi).

A certain power of harmony (DQ?) led him to extrapolate, abstract and
synthesize pieces of the metaphysical puzzle called DQ/SQ.

I believe it does show a 'direction' in this sense. The MoQ can therefore
exhibit teleological tendencies but not in the SOM i.e deterministic/
cause/effect sense. The MoQ fundament stresses 'preferences'. DQ does not
will or prefer anything.

Enter Man. This is where the MoQ's usefulness and danger lies. As the
highest evolved SPOV's we have developed the capacity to express ourselves
in many different ways. To do what is reasonable ( i.e to follow static
PoV's) or to follow Good, i.e Dynamic Quality.(plus all shades inbetween)

To be fair, it seems that these two are combined, at present but looking at
them more closely it appears that the good is that which is popular
(populistic/ socially approved) and 'reasonable' remains a part of dominant
static patterns of value.And the good is still the underdog.

In many ways we are priviledged here on the MD and having been exposed
and influenced by Pirsig's MoQ.

The dominant (in Western countries) SOM way of interpreting reality does not
acknowledge morality as an intellectual PoV. I doubt if it recognises a
'separate' intellectual level. I doubt if it fully understands evolution? I
even doubt sometimes if the SOM attitude realises where it is at.

We do! Through the MoQ we are given a glimpse, through the clear exposition
of such through ZMM and Lila and Lila's Child of the DQ/SQ reality base.In
this way it is easy to analyse, ridicule and or condem.

Our role, and the MoQ's role is to educate, expose (debunk) and introduce
the idea that the world is composed of nothing but moral value (Lila,p101).

This is a huge task indeed.

Mark:
It is fine to sit on the sidelines and use MOQ purely for intellectual
pursuit, and thus create another chapter in the history of? metaphysics. ?It
is another thing to derive from this philosophy a method for directing
society.

Andre:
The 'method for directing society' depends on what role one performs therein
and one's sphere of influence. ( just look at the difficulties Obama has in
shaking a few static PoV's...for better of for worse this is not the point).

Mark:
The fact that MOQ claims to be dealing with Evolution in the sense that it
is something beyond our control and directional, will provide politicians
justification for abuse. ?

Andre:
Who makes this claimand where is this stated Mark? I do not understand.
DQ as the 'driving force' within our concept of evolution has shown
preferences. It is not based on the laws of cause and effect. With the
emergence of the intellectual level we have learned that 'evolution' is not
in the hands of the Gods (i.e beyond/out of our control). It puts the onus
squarely on us as rational/moral beings.
In this sence intellect can provide a rational/moral justification to
politicians (a social pattern of value) to  not abuse... i.e work outside
the MoQ 'programme'.

Mark:
If so many things can be explained by MOQ, does this impact our day to day
behavior? ?And if so, is this something we would want others to realize so
that they will march in step?

Andre:
Well, I cannot speak for you but the MoQ has certainly impacted my life and
day to day behaviour. And I certainly want our politicians (as
representatives of sections of society) to know that to 'march in step' does
not mean to do as you are told or expected.This smacks of populism and
conformity

 If, by 'march in step' you mean follow your own dharma then I think we have
a start.

Cheers
Andre