[MD] A problem with the MOQ.

[118]

Hi Ham,
Thank you for your always respectful and valuable contributions, laced
with some arrogance.  Arrogance is of course needed in promoting a
value, but we should always balance such arrogance with the sardonic,
at least as far as self-evaluation.

You are quite correct about the doctrinal component of MoQ.  This is
indeed a method for teaching of knowledge that involves the esoteric.
In this day and age we tend to dismiss such a method and base our
presentations on the exoteric or objective.  In modern times the
metaphysical is firmly based in the physical, as science provides
great examples.  Yet how does one describe that which lies outside of
the measureable without measuring it?

As you well know, MoQ does dwell partly in the esoteric since that is
where our intuition of DQ comes from.  However, like Buddhism, this is
understood.  Through such understanding one is then able to devise a
metaphysics which incorporates the "ever-unknown", in understandable
rhetoric.  Having said that, there is a trap that many fall into in
MoQ.  This trap is the paradox where "everything I tell you is a lie".
 Within MoQ there is the notion that everything is SQ that can
possibly be thought of, therefore there can be no intellectual
understanding of DQ (for such a thing converts DQ to SQ).  This is a
common paradox one rolls up against when trying to explain the "set of
all sets".

In fact there are those in this forum that find "solace" in this
paradox of SQ.  For it points to the ever-unattainable understanding
of DQ through the persistence of SQ.  However, for one to succumb to
such a paradox simply shows the lack of education of such a thing.
For there is indeed much of MoQ, which describes DQ, quite accurately.
 These descriptions remove MoQ from the purely doctrinal into a hybrid
exoteric/esoteric discipline which is similar to the Kabalah.  As you
may know, the Kabalah is very mathematical, yet it speaks to the
non-intellectual portions of our minds.

In some religions it is common to understand the instructions that
"one must not create and worship false idols".  These idols are
everything from a word for God to an effigy in a church.  Of course it
is this worship that give the Church its power, so it is promoted in a
disingenuous and scheming manner.  This worshiping is the same caution
that Pirsig provides when speaking of the degeneracy of metaphysics.
For once awareness is converted to words, it is no longer that
awareness.  The "Quality that can be written, is not Quality".  One
must therefore always keep in mind what one is doing with MoQ, so as
to not provide it more reach than it deserves.

Any written or spoken metaphysic is conveyed to the willing listener
by giving clues as to what underlies such metaphysics.  Once these
clues are assimilated and used, the clues themselves disappear, and
the student is then able to move forward without remembering them.
Just like the rules of grammar are forgotten once we are fluent in
writing.  How many times do we think of a predicate noun :-)?

Therefore, there is a subtle difference between doctrinal and
dogmatic.  If the dogmatic were the words one must utter in a prayer,
then the doctrinal is the church in which the praying is done.  There
are many prayers in a church.

More below:

On 4/20/12, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
>
> 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.

I would have to say that DQ is not synonymous with Value.  However, I
am hard pressed to explain this.  Having said this, I cannot find a
useful definition for Value which is not somehow self-referential and
therefore redundant.  In order to fully appreciate Value one must also
seek within the "limbo" for an answer.  We can define "things of
Value" or "how Value feels" or "the currency of Value", but Value
itself is simply described by its qualities, and Value itself is
untouched in terms of a grounded definition.  We can have a red bus, a
blue bus, a yellow bus, but what does that tell us about the bus?

It is this problem that Pirsig deals with at great length and could
have possibly catalyzed his "awakening" as described in ZAMM.  For
indeed, what is Quality?  The whole purpose of Lila is to provide some
means for understanding Quality within the current vernacular of the
West.  There are some who do not fully appreciate this predicament,
since they are not faced with it in terms of their own personal
metaphysics.  However, I believe that Pirsig goes much deeper than a
simple epistemology or ontology, to the very ground of being.  We know
what difficulty the Christian mystics had in defining such a thing.
Once I tried to understand the epistemology and ontology of Heidegger.
 The more I dug into it the more I found that he required a certain
doctrinal acceptance.  This acceptance would appear as words that he
gave great meaning to.  But, I do not claim to be smart enough to
understand Heidegger as he meant to be understood.
>
> 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.

That we do not know intellectually the exact nature or dynamics of
this essence is exactly what MoQ is about.  This is no different from
Essentialism in that it is difficult to understand the nature (the
why) of Negation.  However, this does not mean that Essentialism is
useless, far from it, you book is very revealing.  MoQ is painting a
picture with words.  I am sure I do not see the same things in
abstract paintings that you do, yet we are both being guided by the
same painting.  If we base our understanding of such a painting purely
on the brushstrokes, then we may concur as to its meaning.  However,
there is more to a painting than how it was painted.  This more is
what you, yourself, impart to the painting.  You bring it alive and
make it meaningful.  I can never take that away from you with simple
logic ("NO, that is not a carrot in the bottom right corner! It looks
more like an alligator to me!  It fits perfectly with the sphinx right
above it...  What?  No that is a sphinx, not a model T Ford!)
>
> 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.

Yes, this is of course the challenge we are presented with.  To do
this one must resort to a number of tools in addition to logic.
Chautauqua’s (such as Pirsig's), metaphors, mathematics, rhetoric,
sleight of hand, and many many others tools.  If a certain philosophy
is understood intuitively by one, and we can bridge their
understanding to show how MoQ fits within it, this is a very direct
way.  I continue to search far and wide for such bridging; everything
from the metaphysics of Alchemy, to the metaphysics of baseball.  Zen
has always been a good tool for me, but there are not many who
understand Zen out there in the public so such a thing only makes MoQ
more mysterious.  It is far from mysterious; all that is required is a
paradigm shift of sorts.  Many were able to grasp what was meant after
reading ZAMM.
>
> Respectfully submitted,
> Ham

Arrogantly submitted,
Mark
>
> 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
>