Matt, Magnus, All.
On 1 Mars Matt wrote:
> Magnus said:
> As metaphysics models, I see the MoQ and SOM as siblings. They are of
> the same kind. Both do their best to explain our reality, but as a
> self-declared "Pirsigian" (although I'd prefer MoQist), I do think the
> MoQ does a better job.
> Matt:
> This is the crux of the issue because what we mean by "metaphysics"
> (and also, it turns out, "reality") will determine in what way we
> think Pirsig's philosophy and his enemy moniker SOM are similar and
> dissimilar. I would say: they are both siblings because both are a
> collection of words that attempt to help us deal with reality. They
> are different because SOM supposes that it gets reality corre ct,
> whereas Pirsig's philosophy supposes that all philosophies are better
> or worse at dealing with reality, but that there is no One Way That
> Reality Is, which is the only way to make sense of "correct."e siblings
The point is that two metaphysics (as realities) can't co-exist. Either
you are in the SOM or in the MOQ - much like the two black faces
(profiles) or the single white vase example there is no way of seeing
both simultaneously. This rejects Magnus' point of them being siblings
- at least not in an equal sense, one is always the "big brother" laying
down the premises for the other. When in MOQ mode, the SOM
becomes a sub-set (the 4th. level) when in SOM mode, the MOQ is
just another subjective model of the objective reality "out there". The
MOQ is superior because of its "disrobing" the SOM. Before Pirsig
there were no S/O Metaphysics, metaphysics were the said subjective
theories about reality. I.e. it was a wood that no one saw because of
the trees.
If you remember ZAMM, Phaedrus uses the "where were they?"
example at two instances, first about Newton, that his physical model
created the Gravity explanation of reality. This proves that Pirsig's
MOQ created the Quality explanation of reality. I.e. that the MOQ as a
mere theory about an ever-existing Quality is false. OK, the other
instance was to show that there were no subject/object divide before
the Greeks meaning that SOM created the premises that - till now -
has determined our way of thinking, making Magnus dead sure that
language is just a synthetic variety of reality not having the least
influence on it. Matt used an encounter with a tiger as an example that
words are ineffective, but the social level was a reality where correctly
performed rituals (including language) influenced events - included
tiger's behaviour (they did not have a biological tiger). The MOQ does
not support the said "social" view, it says that the Intellect's S/O is a
higher level, yet limits intellect's "range" by robbing it of its "M" (as it
really is) What effect this will have on things if the MOQ takes hold is
the next great question.
But as Matt don't speak to me and Magnus surely will dive down to
some inscrutable depth this won't be answered here ;-)
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/
