Hi Bo and Matt and others, Matt's definition rings some bells with some thoughts I had: religion is old fashioned science, and after Matt, religion is metaphysics. I'm just questioning - not saying it is so - I don't want to push myself to clarify that. Matt's definition of metaphysics as a general framework however reduces it from a field of study to just another name for a person's momentary mindset, something that changes as that person's moment to moment situation changes.
I would say that the mindset becomes metaphysics when a person starts to reason about their situation and begins to develop an approach or attitude (even the attitude 'no attitude' - Book of Five Rings) they intend to carry into their future. Bo, the artifacts left by the dead and those arranged in tombs to commemorate them is a signature of their self-consciousness. The idea that their self-consciousness indicated an eternal life manifested temporarily in a physical body however, would have been too complicated for them; I think the life eternal was invented as a comforting metaphysics only to give reason to the suffering of life and to avoid the apparent futility of living. In the end we can only guess about how our ancestor's thought, and today, though conversation with people in the religious mindset is available nevertheless it does not seem to clarify our new metaphysics. If Pirsig's four levels are seen as evolving levels of being just as some apes may now have intimations of self awareness so we must begin to ask what may be the characteristics of a possible fifth level; certainly an openness to what Doris Lessing called the substance of 'We' feeling and also, I suggest, a new way of thinking that seeks to re-incorporate the mind with the body. -Peter On 12/04/2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 6 Apr 2008 at 15:49, Matt Kundert wrote: > > > My two definitions: > > > 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"). > > Talking to Matt is a safe sport, no disturbing replies. However his > definition (#1) is pretty good, only I can't get it basic enough. > Even Pirsig's "..no-one living in an ordered universe can avoid > metaphysics" should have omitted "ordered" because human > beings invariably order existence - that's their hallmark. Thus > even the old mythologies were metaphysics in this extended > sense. > > An aside): Because only human beings has entered the Q-social > level and a mythology requires language I wonder if not language > and the social level are intimately connected. A chicken & egg > relationship. From now on I use that as my premises. > > It's said that the first registered burial rituals is a sign - not only of > a notion of an existence beyond, but of an EXISTENCE at all, but > as sure is it that early humankind didn't invent the beyond as a > comfort against their fear of death, rather that the existence > beyond was what confirmed an existence here. Anyone > understand the the immensity of this point? > > As I see it, MOQ's message is that each static level is the > creation of a reality different from the one before it and the social > level was a shift from biology's non-existential existence (death > no issue as an "idea") to one of eternal existence (death as a > mere transition to another realm) Thus when the 4th level > emerged with its objective outlook that gave death a final "fall > from the rim of existence" quality) social value attained a > "paradise lost" quality for many. > > This I believe was behind Phaedrus' identifying the old Aretê with > Value itself, and his hatred of SOM that destroyed it. In MOQ this > is the social-intellectual transition and my above explains why > intellect looks so "valueless" (to regard intellect this way is wrong > but enough for now). I just wonder why Pirsig so patently refuses > to compare ZAMM with the MOQ and so mysteriously downplays > the SOM. > > Anyway. I also believe this to be behind other attempts to > systematize the upheaval around this time in history it, for > instance Owen Barfield's "Participation Scheme" that fits > uncannily with MOQ's social - intellectual stages and because > Barfield postulates a "resumption of participation" fits with the > MOQ itself, i.e. a return to the holistic "social" view ... although at > a higher plane. > > > 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"). > > This resembles Pirsig's about the MOQ as a mere theory about > the "Quality Reality" that can be divided any way and still be > good. Something I deeply disagree with. > > 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/ > 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/
