[MD] A problem with the MOQ.

[Ant McWatt]

Ham,

Good to hear from you.

You stated April 20th:

> 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.

Ant McWatt comments:

By keeping Dynamic Quality undefined is the exact reason why the MOQ is more cogent and relevant than any other metaphysical system that you're likely to find in any modern Anglo-American philosophy department.  In fact (to turn round a certain 1961 diagnosis!), you'd have to be some kind of nut to pre-determine completely what will be considered good in the future.  Immediate experience tends to be a mixture of good, rather indifferent and bad experiences so to make undefined Dynamic Quality as a start of the empirical train works metaphysically.  It's therefore not really dogmatic but, in fact, a postulation that works.

-----cut-----

> 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.

Ham, if you codified DQ, you'd kill the MOQ.  Any definition of Dynamic Quality would be limited and misleading.  As Elvis said, "That's [just] the way it is".

As far as codifying the MOQ is concerned, I think it works pretty well.  The MOQ takes into account more things in reality than an SOM can coherently take account of and, through the notion of cosmological evolution, also explains how this reality hangs together in a better way. 

Best wishes,

Anthony





> From: hampday1 at verizon.net
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 03:43:32 -0400
> Subject: Re: [MD] A problem with the MOQ.
> 
> 
> 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 



.