[MD] Nagarjuna and the MOQ

[Ham Priday]

Arlo and innocent bystanders --


On Mon, 9/19/11 at 11:54 AM, Arlo Bensinger <ajb102 at psu.edu> quoted a series 
of statements posted by Ham, concluding with a facetious proposal to do 
further research:

[Arlo]
> In fairness, I've tried to find parts where you saying anything supportive 
> of Pirsig's MOQ. I can go back further, if you wish.

He who looks for trouble will find it.  The quotes you painstakingly copied 
and pasted were apparently for your own benefit, as they've elicited no 
complaints from other posters here.  Yes, they are my criticisms of the 
Quality thesis as generally interpreted, and I stand by them, although 
quoted out of context they have little if any meaning to the casual reader.

Feel free to explore the archives for additional Ham comments, if this is 
what gets your rocks off.  You may even learn something worthwhile in the 
process.  However, if your idea of "fairness" is based on a balance of 
positive vs. negative comments, I plead 'nolo contendere', since there would 
be no point in addressing those tenets which are universally understood and 
accepted.

Cheers, and thanks for the free publicity.

--Ham

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


> [Ham]
> In this way you, Arlo, and others may see that I am not here to condemn 
> the MoQ, nor am I "totally antagonistic" toward Pirsig's tenets.
>
> [Ham later in same post]
> This is, in fact, the fundamental fundamental premise of Essentialism. 
> Unfortunately, it is missing (possibly hidden?) in Pirsig's exposition.
>
> [Ham moving backwards in the archives]
> I have never understood why Pirsig settled for Quality over Value as his 
> fundamental reality, especially having outlined the nature of Value in his 
> SODV paper.  Of course, I maintain that neither term can be fundamental
>
> Perfectly comprehensible, right?
>
> By making reality "indefinable" Pirsig's template essentially ignores 
> metaphysics, which is why the MoQ is not a metaphysical thesis in the 
> classical sense.  What he has constructed is a euphemistic paradigm 
> ("figures of speech", as Steve would say) for evolutionary existence.
>
> Doesn't this make more sense than trying to fathom what "following DQ" 
> really means?
>
> I'm confused enough that Pirsig has ascribed "dynamic" to the ultimate 
> Reality (which is unjustified IMO) while defining a world in constant flux 
> as "static patterns".  In addition to interpreting the temporal process of 
> evolution as "levels", we are required to classify all experience as 
> either "definable" or "indefinable".  Now you add "intentional" and "real" 
> to this list of experiential qualifiers.  Is there no end to the MoQ's 
> complexity?
>
> I view the MoQ as neither physics nor metaphysics but as a euphemistic 
> paradigm of differentiated existence.
>
> I would suggest that Steve's "frustration" is a result of having to deal 
> with a "logically incoherent" philosophy.  His statements are certainly 
> not intended as a personal vendetta, and his conclusions are no more 
> confused than anyone else who attempts to configure his epistemology to 
> Mr. Pirsig's evolutionary paradigm.
>
> In my opinion, the MoQ is incomplete as a metaphysical theory, and the 
> hierarchical levels of evolution do not account for the emergence of 
> proprietary awareness which is necessary for the realization of Value. 
> I'm well aware that these are serious charges, but it's clear to me that 
> the Quality thesis in its present form falls short of providing a meaning 
> for cognizant life and is an inadequate guide to human morality.
>
> Only by acknowledging the free self can the MoQ survive as a viable and 
> comprehensible philosophy.
>
> Mr. Prisig would like us to believe it's Quality.  He elevates DQ to the 
> supreme level and reduces everything else to a static pattern of Quality 
> and -- Eureka! -- he's got a metaphysics.  But metaphysics is more than a 
> euphemistic paradigm.  And "pattern" is only a convenient fudge-word that 
> avoids having to posit a workable thesis.
>
> As Marsha would put it: it's all analogy and reified conventionalism.  In 
> other words, why ruin the fantasy by struggling to define it?  This may 
> not accurately express RMP's metaphysics, but it certainly reflects his 
> poetic spirit IMO.
>
> Also, as many times as this has been quoted, can I be the only one who 
> sees the absurdity of this statement?
> "To the extent that one's behavior is controlled by static patterns of 
> quality it is without choice.  But to the extent that one follows Dynamic 
> Quality, which is undefinable, one's behavior is free."
>
> And, as much as I'd like to accommodate it to Qualityism, the fact that 
> Quality is not a primary source makes this a logical impossibility. 
> That's the dilemma I confront in this forum.  The "problem" I have with 
> the MoQ is indeed "fundamental"; it is the fundament that Quality lacks.
>
> You are perpetrating a fallacy conjured up by Pirsig.
>
> Pirsig allegedly got his inspiration for the MoQ from Zen Buddhism.  But 
> when he and Marsha (who also studies Orientalism) conclude that there is 
> no self, I begin to despair that there is any hope left for Western 
> Philosophy.
>
> [Arlo]
> This only goes back to June, and I left out larger passages.
>
> In fairness, I've tried to find parts where you saying anything supportive 
> of Pirsig's MOQ. I can go back further, if you wish.