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

[plattholden at gmail.com]

Hi Ron,

I think we know ultimate reality. Pirsig obviously believes his theory 
explains ultimate reality, and considering its explanatory power, I'm 
inclined to believe him. Infinite regress occurs from the assumption that 
everything has a cause. In a world of moral order as described by the 
MOQ, values (which come prior to intellectual constructions like 
"cause") are simultaneously immanent and transcendent, known vividly 
to you and me as common ordinary everyday experience. Proof? 
Testimony of sages throughout the ages. Example:

"Like the empty sky it has no boundaries.
Yet it is right HERE, ever serene and clear.
When you seek to attain it, you cannot see it.
You cannot take hold of it.
But neither can you lose it."
                  
                        ---- Yung-chia 

I don't know how to get any more real than Now.

Regards,
Platt      


On 10 Nov 2009 at 9:44, X Acto wrote:

> Platt,
> I think Craigs point is that one may ask "why" in response to every and any explaination
> that is given in an infinite regress. And to my knowledge "ultimate" reality is unknowable
> in any ultimate sense. Experience being the closest one may get, which is indefineable.
> Ultimate explainations are for those objectivly minded folks who believe such things are attainable.
> Here's the distinction, Pirsigs MoQ provides another interpetation of experience not
> an ultimate explaination of reality. Thats the fallacy.
> 
> -Ron
> 
>  
> 
> 
> > 
> > Craig:
> > If you're looking for ultimate explanations, as Pirsig notes, 
> > you'll be disappointed.  Explanation comes to an end, limited by our 
> > knowledge.  Explanations only improve when our knowledge does. 
> > Take a simple case: why are positive & negative charges attracted to 
> > each other?  We use this fact to explain the behavior of particles, but 
> > at this time we cannot explain this fact itself.  And if we ever do, that will 
> > just raise the question of what in turn explains that explanation. 
> > Craig 
> 
> Hi Craig,
> 
> Pirsig claims the MOQ explains ultimate reality. From his annotations to 
> the Copleston paper:
> 
> "The MOQ, on the other hand, explains evil in evolutionary terms that 
> are compatible with its theory of ultimate reality."
> 
> This ties with his answer to "Why survive?
> 
> "But in a value-centered explanation of evolution they are close to the 
> Dynamic process itself, pulling the pattern of life forward to greater 
> levels of versatility, and freedom." (Lila, 11)
> 
> So yes, I look to philosophy to provide ultimate explanations, and for 
> me, Pirsig answers my questions better than any other, including why . 
> positive and negative charges are attracted to one another. Because 
> they value that attraction as a consequence of the world's moral order.  
> 
> Best,
> Platt
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>