Hi Joe
I know that you have addressed me before, but my capacity is
limited and the MOQ (in the SOL interpretation) is my
overwhelming interest. This looks interesting however.
7 Feb. you wrote:
> In all of this I do not see the focus for evolution. Two words are
> generally used indiscriminately essence¹ and existence¹. SOM treats
> essence as definition, and by SOM existence is defined as divided into
> real existence and intentional existence as per Aristotle. Pirsig
> argues that Aristotle erred by not seeing the value in existence.
"Essence/Existence" sounds familiar. Is it Ham Priday or Johann
Wolfgang Goethe?
Regarding Aristotle, you shouldn't happen to mean "internal"? I
don't know that Aristotle speaks of "intentional" (but my
knowledge is limited).
Anyway, it's wrong to speak about SOM as the result of a formal
metaphysical splitting. SOM is MOQ's creation and until Pirsig
nobody knew it, everone believed the S/O divide to be how
existence was - had been and would remain - always. And
because so few still know Pirsig, this is still the case. Books are
being published about the mind/matter relationship, where "mind"
is located and other "problems" eminating from SOM.
Your last sentence ...
> Pirsig argues that Aristotle erred by not seeing the value in
> existence.
...is also a bit off. Pirsig of ZAMM does not speak much about
Aristotle, but accuses Plato of having made the original Aretê
Existence into an Imortal Truth (ZAMM).
But why? Phædrus wondered. Why destroy areté? And no
sooner had he asked the question than the answer came
to him. Plato hadn't tried to destroy areté. He had
encapsulated it; made a permanent, fixed Idea out of it;
had converted it to a rigid, immobile Immortal Truth.
Plato's SOM was that of "Appearances/Truth" (the first the
fleeting, unreliable (subjective) part, the latter the eternal
(objective) one. Aristotle's was "Form/Substance" with the same
relationship between the two
So you see, neither Plato nor Aristotle spoke about any
"Existence" or "Reality" prior to any splitting, reality was split the
said way from the outset.
> Is essence¹ or existence¹ the root of change in evolution? Is mind
> or will either one of these? In trying to answer this question, I
> ask: Is evolution an expansion or a contraction? I have to answer
> both! The beginning of evolution is a contraction of the Earth¹s
> possibilities. The Earth has more ties to the moon. Something has
> occurred, not everything has occurred. Continuing evolution is an
> expansion of possibilities in that something that is only ruled by
> gravity at first, can now neutralize gravity by speed and circle the
> earth.
The above may be important in your view, but we discuss Pirsig's
ideas so I can't but go on about the MOQ.
Pirsig however did commit the blunder, namely that of treating
SOM the said way and it starts in ZAMM where the motorcycle is
used as an example. A motorcycle however remains intact after a
theoretical divide, but reality doesn't, and this is the source of the
notion of an intact Quality(=Reality) left behind after the
dynamic/static divide.
When this thing is cleared up, the MOQ becomes what it is
intended to be: a Quality Reality. Not another subjective theory
about an objective Quality that has existed from the beginning of
time ... a repetition of SOM.
> What force can both expand and contract? From the view of history
> the inner expands while the outer corrupts to death. Metaphysics
> expanded when Aristotle exposed SOM.
Aristotle exposed SOM!? Pirsig was the first that exposed in the
"disrobing" sense and Pirsig was also the first that saw its origin
with the Greeks in a creational sense.
The modern mind sometimes tends to balk at the thought
of these dichotomies being inventions and says, ``Well,
the divisions were there for the Greeks to discover,'' and
you have to say, ``Where were they? Point to them!'' And
the modern mind gets a little confused and wonders what
this is all about anyway, and still believes the divisions
were there.
> The error is the evolution of metaphysics stopped after him. But with
> the MOQ¹s emphasis on Value, metaphysics is expanding again. Without
> an emphasis on inner experience I have no way of even seeing the
> question. I grow old, smaller, and I die.
SOM did not stop with Aristotle, as the 4th. level (in a MOQ
retrospect) it grew more and more formidable like all levels have
before it and with the late twentieth century it reached a
complexity that spawned the MOQ, which isn't a new level but
the metaphysics that ordered excistence along the
Dynamic/Static line and - most important - adopted the SOM as
its own intellectual level.
IMO
Bo
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/
