[MD] BeTteR-neSs (undefined or otherwise)

[Ham Priday]

On Tues., 11/2 at 1:34 PM, DMB said to Ham:


> The MOQ is a solution to a problem and you are denying that
> there is a problem. So the solution is quite meaningless to you.
> It's worse than that, actually. As you see it, the solution is the
> problem. ...would have us pretend that we are living an illusion,
> that there are no subjects and objects, no freedom to choose,
> no role for mankind other than to go with the flow to "betterness"
> that "... reduces the human being to little more than an automaton
> of Nature with no will or purpose of his own."
>
> See, that view of the MOQ is very far from accurate. I'd even say
> it's pretty darn slanderous. The MOQ is profoundly humanistic,
> in fact. Man is the measure of all things, a participant in the creation
> of all things and thou art that. It is scientific materialism that reduces
> humans to little more than automatons and Absolutism that denies
> free will. The MOQ opposes both of these things. And both of
> those things grow out of the very problem you are denying.

It's sad but true that the easiest way to avenge an idea that is alien to 
one's persuasion is to attack the author.  In this instance, I'm accused of 
"slander" because I deny that acknowledging the individual subject is a 
"problem".  Yet we engage, converse, and collaborate with individuals as 
cognizant subjects on a daily basis.  Indeed, if we didn't believe other 
people were subjects like us, human civilization would be impossible.

But, lo, a philosopher comes along with the "new idea" that subjects and 
objects are an outmoded notion.  All that really exists, he says, are 
patterns of Quality.  And this idea incites the philosopher's acolytes to 
denounce Cartesian reality as "old-fashioned metaphysics".  Plato had a 
similar idea 2300 years ago, only he called these existents "Forms".  Is it 
the concept of a qualitative reality, or the terminology used to describe 
it, that makes the MoQ approach to ontology "radical empiricism"?

dmb continues:
> There is a distinction between theism and religion and that's true
> regardless of what Pirsig says. Buddhism and Taoism are non-theistic
> religions, for example. Philosophical mysticism is a non-theistic form
> of religion too. The MOQ is compatible with non-theistic religions,
> with non-theistic forms of mysticism. The Stanford Encyclopedia
> has a substantial article on "Mysticism" so you certainly don't have
> to take my word for it. A few sentences from the opening paragraphs
> is enough to show this.

"Typically, mystics, theistic or not, see their mystical experience as part 
of a larger undertaking aimed at human transformation and not as the 
terminus of their efforts. Thus, in general, ‘mysticism’ would best be 
thought of as a constellation of distinctive practices, discourses, texts, 
institutions, traditions, and experiences aimed at human transformation, 
variously defined in different traditions.
Under the influence of William James' The Varieties of Religious Experience, 
heavily centered on people's conversion experiences, most philosophers' 
interest in mysticism has been in distinctive, allegedly knowledge-granting 
“mystical experiences.” Philosophers have focused on such topics as the 
classification of mystical experiences, their nature in different religions 
and mystical traditions, to what extent mystical experiences are conditioned 
by a mystic's language and culture, and whether mystical experiences furnish 
evidence for the truth of their contents."

OK, so despite the fact that Mr. Pirsig specifically labeled his philosophy 
"atheistic", the MoQers are not "anti-theists" but "mystics".  And, although 
mystics may be "theistic or not", they "see mystical experience as part of a 
"human transformation".  I note that David describes mysticism as "a 
constellation of distinctive practices, discourses, texts, institutions, 
traditions, and experiences," all of which are products of social behavior, 
giving no credit to  the inspiration, intuitive insight, or intellection of 
the individuals who created these products.  As far as dmb is concerned, 
what fuels mysticism is the collective "language and culture" of its people.

dmb concludes:
> ... you're not understanding my criticism, Ham. There is nothing
> innovative about your essentialism.  In this postmodern era,
> that kind of metaphysics is dead. You're asserting modern ideas
> and even some pre-modern views in a postmodern world.  The
> things you're saying have been said many times already in the
> history of philosophy and the only scholars who still cling to such
> things are the most conservative of theologians. They are considered
> to be old fashioned and out of touch even among other theologians.

Law professor Phillip Johnston described the current plight of philosophy 
quite accurately, I think, in his 1993 book First Things:

“Secularized intellectuals have long been complacent in their apostasy 
because they were sure they weren't missing anything important in consigning 
God to the ashcan of history.  They were happy to replace the Creator with a 
mindless evolutionary process that left humans free and responsible only to 
themselves.  They complacently assumed that when their own reasoning power 
was removed from its grounding in the only ultimate reality, it could float, 
unsupported, on nothing at all.  As modernist rationalism gives way in 
universities to its own natural child--postmodernist nihilism--modernists 
are learning very slowly what a bargain they have made.  It isn't a bargain 
a society can live with indefinitely.”

That is an excerpt from an original essay I wrote a couple of years ago 
titled "Philosophy is Dead".  The complete essay is too long to post, but I 
suggest you take the time to read it at 
http://www.essentialism.net/philosophy_is_dead.htm.  If nothing else, it 
should give you a better understanding of how I look at religion, mysticism 
and philosophy in terms of beliefs and meaning.  Should you be so inclined, 
I'd like your critique of this piece (at your convenience, of course).

Thanks for the interest, David,
Ham

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Ham said:
If the points I have disputed in this forum are sufficient to "undermine the 
MOQ," then I would have to suggest that the MOQ is founded on quicksand.  As 
you see, Horse has assured me that being "at odds with aspects of the MoQ" 
does not constitute a reason for rejection.  I'll stand by the 
administrator's decision, not yours, David.

dmb says:
I'm not calling for your removal and I don't think the MOQ is in any danger 
because of your essentialism. I'm just saying that you've failed to 
understand how wildly incompatible it is. I'm just saying that you don't 
understand the MOQ or even the problem it addresses.

Ham said:
Your gratuitous comments about joining the Catholic church and selling magic 
to scientists are too churlish to merit a serious response.

dmb says:
That was just an analogy, Ham. The Catholic church is related to atheism as 
magic is related to science. The idea here is simply to characterize the 
relation between the MOQ and your essentialism. If the MOQ sees SOM as the 
problem to be solved and essentialism sees that same thing as the main 
principle to be protected, then there are opposed to each other in a very 
fundamental way. Do you really not understand this simple point? The 
Catholics also want to protect the very thing that atheism opposes. Magical 
thinking is approximately the opposite of scientific thinking. I'm not 
really talking about churches or magic. I'm just about the RELATIONS between 
those opposed views. I could simply say that Pirsig is trying to cool things 
down and you're trying to heat them up but I'm not talking about 
temperature. I'm talking about your opposition to the MOQ.