[MD] A problem with the MOQ.

[Jan-Anders Andersson]

Hi Ham

That is one of the reasons why I wrote "Money and the Art of Losing Control".
Understanding the MOQ, how it can be used in an everyday quality life, is not only satisfying our curiosity about the indefinable essence, it is right, it is fun and it is sexy. Just what people on this planet of today would like it to be. How about you?

Jan Anders

20 apr 2012 kl. 09.43 skrev Ham Priday:

> 
> Hi Ant, Mark, David, Tuuka, Arlo, John and All --
> 
> 
> I've been holding off here for several weeks, waiting for an issue I could sink my wisdom teeth into, so to speak.  The recent series of posts (under 'Awareness and Consciousness' and 'A problem with the MOQ') has rekindled my interest sufficiently to return to the fray.
> 
> Is there a problem with the MOQ?   "What has [Pirsig's] metaphysics not taken account of properly?" asks Ant.  And David presses him with the follow-up question: "Do you think Pirsig has missed something?"  How can an erstwhile renegade to the MOQ resist an opener like that?
> 
> So as not to be censured for disagreeing with "the Prophet of Quality", I'll begin by basing my argument on statements I support to a large degree.  The first of these is Ant's assertion that "Pirsig was fortunate to stumble on the problem of defining value as his metaphysical starting point."  Of all the tenets presented by the author -- including his concepts of "static" and "dynamic" Quality, intellectual supremacy, and the indefinability of Truth -- I believe positing Value as the essence of man's reality has contributed most significantly to contemporary western philosophy.
> 
> The tenet that Value is fundamental to existence, however, as DMB points out, must be understood conceptually if it is to be accepted as a metaphysical principle.  And the fact that the author avoided defining DQ, which is his name for Value, places it in limbo insofar as metaphysics is concerned.  We are left without an explanation of its ontological source or its epistemological relation to mankind.
> 
> So the problem with the MOQ isn't that Pirsig was wrong; it's that we don't know the exact nature or dynamics of this indefinable essence.  And that's what makes it "doctrinal" (e.g., dogmatic) as opposed to a cogent metaphysical theory.
> 
> If, as David Harding dramatically suggests, "the MOQ has the potential to do unspeakably amazing things for the planet," it seems to me that the idea of Value as DQ must be codified into a workable thesis that supports the moral and ontological principles espoused by the author.  Indeed, this may well be the challenge that confronts MOQ enthusiasts as we progress through this new century.
> 
> Respectfully submitted,
> Ham 
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html