Bo said: "Metaphysics" is a concept invented by SOM's instigator Aristotle and is supposed to mean the deepest possible theory ABOUT reality, meaning that such subjective theorizing don't have the least influence on objective reality. ...The MOQ definition of metaphysics is as Pirsig says in LILA (before he went on to denounce it) that no-one can avoid metaphysics, meaning that their explanation of reality is reality itself.
Steve replied: Aha! Here it is. I think we've stumbled on the root of the problem with SOLAQI. I never had a problem with your claim that S/O distinctions as fundamental to the intellectual level. It is the taking the MOQ out side the 4th level that I could never understand. You do this because you think of SOM and the MOQ not as separate philosophies but as different realities. ...[Pirsig] does say, "no one can escape metaphysics," but no where does he imply as far as I can tell that an explanation of reality is reality itself. In fact I don't think that anyone really suffers from this confusion. Not even you. He also only says that "no one can escape metaphysics" when they are inside a "logical, coherent universe of thought." This is not a literal universe. It is just systematic thinking about the nature of reality. ...Pirsig in fact supports the mystic opposition which says that "Metaphysics is not reality. Metaphysics is names about reality. Metaphysics is a restaurant where they give you a thirty-thousand page menu and no food." That's why the MOQ can sit comfortably in the intellectual level along with every other pattern of thought. dmb says: That makes sense. No wonder I never saw the problem. As I see it, Bo can continue to construe Pirsig as denouncing and reversing himself or he can entertain the possibility that he's been working with some serious misconceptions. It does seem more likely than not. If Bo is right then even Pirsig is wrong about the MOQ. What are the odds of that? On top of the misconception Steve patiently untangled here, there also seem to be something unusual about Bo's conception of SOM. And his use of the word "value" points to a third. There are probably more, but the centrality of these three terms is such that any misconception will have a wide reaching effect. But there is a sense in which we do create reality. The static reality, all the stuff referenced in a complete encyclopedia, is a creation. Think of the Quine piece recently posted, where material objects are compared to Homeric gods. The quote Steve recently posted from Lila about how children learn to interpret experience in terms of objects also relates to this creative process. This "created" reality has a plasticity to it that would make "objective" truth blush, but this is not something that happens instantly. The analogues upon analogues that make up our reality have been built up over a long evolutionary process. Intellectual evolution apparently moves much faster than social and biological evolution, but I get the impression that Bo wants reality to be transformed overnight by a single author. What's the hurry? _________________________________________________________________ Helping your favorite cause is as easy as instant messaging. You IM, we give. http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/Home/?source=text_hotmail_join 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/
