Hi Bo, I have to regret that I cannot really have a conversation with you about this, Bo. I hope no one takes offense, but, as I've tried to explain before why I can't really do it, let me try a different tack. It is difficult, Bo, for me to get a handle on you because, despite your single-minded determination to read everyone in a single, grand way (for or against you), you to me also display a terrible streak of unpredictability. I can never quite predict what you'll think about any particular issue that comes up. That's not a very Emersonian thing to pride, but I find very little of "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" in your philosophy. If I can't predict what you'll think, it's difficult to say what your "thought" is.
Now, I do have a pretty strong feeling for your philosophical positions. But in dialogue, you pretty much deny all classifications except those in your own words, which is admirable, but dull because of the whole, "well, what the hell _are_ you talking about?" thing that people who use different words get. This is to say your philosophical positions aren't interesting--I just can't profitable talk to you about them. For instance, as an example, my note at the end of my post: "I don't really care what kind of definition people use for 'metaphysics,' so long as they read other people with care enough to consider we all may be using slightly idiosyncratic usages." I wasn't thinking of you, but you are a prime candidate for this and you basically thumbed your nose at it. In your reply, you commented on my definitions, but suggested a few changes--except the changes to the definitions effectively made the categories into "Agrees with Bo" and "Disagrees with Bo." Further, "Bo" here not only stands for your own philospohical positions, but also for "metaphysics" (reengineering "metaphysicians" as only those who agree with Bo) and "reality" (which has to do with your own particular theory). This is an odd way of having a conversation. My definitions had nothing to do with your particular view of Pirsig's philosophy. Matt > Matt. > > You wrote on 28 February: > >> 1) Metaphysics is the general framework, or understanding, or set of >> assumptions, that people unconsciously (with various degrees of >> self-consciousness) interpret, or see, or live in the world. As an >> activity, it is the attempt to make the unconscious self-conscious >> (this activity is also known in some circles as "philosophy"). > > This is definitely what the MOQ aspires to, but regardless how > basic and fundamental we try to make it, the SOMish (4th. level) > Aristotelian (#2 below) definition clings to it. It takes a leap (year) > to bring oneself out of intellect and on to the MOQ proper. > >> 2) Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that attempts to display >> the basic, universal, ahistorical underpinnings of reality (this >> activity is also sometimes known in some circles as "Platonism," and >> in a few circles the acronymic "SOM"). > >> And, as I am wont to do, I have slotted everyone who has given an >> answer (or commented, before giving their own--against Magnus' rules, >> on someone else's) willy-nilly into two categories-- > >> People who like the first definition: Arlo, Steve, SA, Dewey, Pirsig > > Objections, Phaedrus of ZAMM and this person have been the > only MOQ fundamentalists ... till now at least. Platt has supported > me - at times - Mati Palm-Leis too (are you listening Mati?) Chris > I believe will join this radical view? > >> People who like the second definition: Me (Matt), Magnus, Marsha, Ian, >> Plato, Rorty > > Agree, but add all from the list above - Pirsig too - because all > who believe that the MOQ is a mere theory ABOUT Quality aren't > true Quality Metaphysicians. > >> 2) I find Magnus' distinction between an "understanding/model of the >> metaphysics" and "the metaphysics itself" to be troubling for an >> self-declared Pirsigian (as, I glean, others also feel). > > You bet it's troubling, but the root of all troubles is Pirsig himself > who in LILA starts with the correct definition: > > But even then the assertion that metaphysics is > meaningless sounded false to him. As long as you're > inside a logical, coherent universe of thought you can't > escape metaphysics. > > ... but then swerves away from it and ends up in the Aristotelian > (SOM) on metaphysic a subjective theory about an objective > something out there. The fact that the "objective" now is Quality > instead of Reality doesn't make any difference, the MOQ as a > subjective theory about objective Quality makes it a SOM variety. > Also, look how insisting on the MOQ being an intellectual pattern > indicates that the 4th. level is a mind realm where theories are. > > Only the clear cut of declaring the DQ/SQ as the Quality Reality > gives the MOQ its mighty explanatory power. Without it, it's > impotent. > > IMO > > Bo _________________________________________________________________ Climb to the top of the charts! Play the word scramble challenge with star power. http://club.live.com/star_shuffle.aspx?icid=starshuffle_wlmailtextlink_jan 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/
