Hi David -- > Here's how I see it. Pirsig does do metaphysics, it's called > the MOQ. But unlike earlier metaphysics he tries to keep it > to a minimum. Why? because if you can make sense of > experience by going beyond it the least possible then you > are most likely to have gone least wrong.
The way I size up your rationale, it's a good thing to make sense of reality as long as we don't stray too far from experience. In other words (to paraphrase your author), some things are better than others, until they get "too good". If the scientific method were based on the premise that a minimum of understanding is better than the maximum, do you suppose we would have ever have eradicated polio, invented computer technology, landed on the moon, or cracked the atom? In the search for truth about reality, is clinging to the illusion of experience "safer" or more efficacious than going all out for a "breakthrough"? > So keeping close to experience he says lets postulate > two ontological concepts: DQ and SQ. Can (using just > these and the idea of levels of SQ) we make good sense > of experience? The answer I'd suggest is yes. A vast > improvement on the mess and problems of SOM > philosophy and metaphysics. Us MOQers accept > metaphysics, we call it the MOQ, but we keep it to a > minimum and find that this is good. You seem to think > that unless you start creating a great host of pointless > concepts it is not real metaphysics. I disagree and hope > you can see this point. I understand your point, but do not agree with it. A lesser truth is never better than the "whole truth". And while the whole truth of reality is beyond man's experience, the philosopher works on the presumption that it is possible to conceptualize intuitively what we cannot deduce experientially. This is the aim of metaphysics, but development of metaphysical theories is impeded by the tenacious grip of objective reality on man's perspective. Only logic and intuitive reasoning can free us from this existential delusion. MOQers accept metaphysics in name only--as the title of an existentialist philosophy that is anything but metaphysical. The author himself despised metaphysics and the definitions it requires. "Keeping it to a minimum" by euphemistic references in a fictionalized novel is not my idea of a metaphysical thesis. The fact that you regard my concepts as "pointless" only indicates that you fail to see the point. I happen to hold the same opinion concerning Pirsig's four levels of Quality. To me, trying to figure out which level Intellect belongs to is like asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. As a firm believer in Occam's razor, I can assure you that every concept I've posited is fundamental to the overall philosophy of Essence. But, of course, if you reject the thesis as a whole, the postulates will seem meaningless. Which is precisely why the objectivist mindset is closed to metaphysical reasoning. Sorry, David, but "playing it safe" in philosophy is a form of equivocation. More temerity is needed if we are to make significant inroads in philosophical thought. Thanks and regards, 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
