Bo, Arlo, all ... Bo, I must have missed that exchange with Arlo, ...
On the face of it, I'd disagree with Arlo, but he carefully puts "problem" and "division" in scare quotes - so I suspect I'm closer to what Arlo "means" than his words "say" here. I do still disagree with you, even though you agree with Arlo - isn't overly simplistic logic wonderful stuff - Not ;-) So first point. Quality is "divided" by the MoQ - but the static / dynamic division is not represented in the system / model. DQ is another layer or dimension that remains ineffable in this picture, and the MoQ is no different to any other (inferior) metaphysics in having an ineffable dimension. At some point all metaphysics is "mere" theory. But what is good (metaphysics / theory) Bo ? All the divisions represented and defined in the MoQ concern patterns of static quality. Yes DQ "is part of the system" but an ineffable part of the process present throughout the whole system, that simply cannot be represented in a static representation (intellectual pattern). Second point. Cracked record time. A system / model that includes a working description of itself is NOT an illogical concept. It's they key to a good system / model. It's only illogical if you stick with the simplistic logic of division of a one-dimensional medium, comprising objects waiting to be divided (set theory, Russell's paradox, etc). The reason it is good, rather than to be dismissed as illogical, is that the apparently circular logic crosses conceptual levels - something that would once have been criticised as a "category error" by people certain of their S/O ontologies - but a "strange loop" which in fact enables the evolution of new patterns (of static quality), because (a) static quality comes in multi-level patterns, and (b) dynamic quality is in a whole 'nother dimension. I don't doubt Pirsig's and your historical interpretations of how the primarily S/O division was really just a mis-step in a potential ancient MoQ, and the significance of Descartes and Kant in cementing the mis-step meme in Western minds and culture. The difference between us Bo, is I'm looking forward, to "what should we do" you are looking backwards to "who should we blame". Which is good / better ? Regards Ian On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 7:15 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Arlo, All. > > On 17 April you wrote: (to Ian) > > > You see the "problem", of course. Any system that "divides" the cosmos > > can't be contained within any of its divisions. By definition, it is > > above those divisions. > > Agree! . > > > Pirsig mentions this in ZMM. "Quality is the continuing stimulus which > > our environment puts upon us to create the world in which we live. All > > of it. Every last bit of it. ... Now, to take that which has caused us > > to create the world, and include it within the world we have created, > > is clearly impossible. That is why Quality cannot be defined. If we do > > define it we are defining something less than Quality itself." (ZMM) > > I can only repeat that DQ is part of the MOQ system. The above > is Phaedrus first "trinity" insight that of subjects and objects as > subsets of Quality, something that developed into the Romantic/ > Classic moq where the Classic part was the subject/object split, > subtitled "intellect". Now, the romantic/classic pair didn't become > final, but its likeness with the dynamic/static one is obvious. > > However, the source of "the Quality outside the MOQ" notion is > the top box of the diagram that makes it look as if (a) Quality > remans behind after the first split. It's like religion would postulate > a God/World split, yet keeping (a) God outside this dualism. BTW > the same box diagram makes it look as if (a) Reality iremains > behind after the S/O split. See below. > > > And let me be clear, I don't think this is just Pirsig's MOQ, but > > applies to the nature of all metaphysical inquiries. Pirsig says as > > much in LILA. "There already is a metaphysics of Quality. A > > subject-object metaphysics is in fact a metaphysics in which the first > > division of Quality - the first slice of undivided experience is > > into subjects and objects." In this sense, I'd argue, "metaphysics of > > Quality" is redundant. There is Quality. And there are Metaphysical > > descriptions of that Quality. We more or less look past this > > redundancy due to Pirsig's particular use of the word "Quality", and > > maybe that's part of the confusion. > > SOM does not "say" that it is a subject/object ordering of > anything, SOM is the very S/O split and this gave it its > metaphysical power. The same must be done by the MOQ for it > to take effect. The final break with SOM is to strip it of its > metaphysical rank and relegate it the role of MOQ's 4th. level. > That way Pirsig's about the S/O being a division of Quality, > becomes true. > > One last thing: We know how SOM evolved up through the > centuries, Descartes was a milestone, but in ZMM Pirsig refers to > Immanuel Kant and he is SOM's final word: An ineffable yet > objective (An Sich) reality that we make up subjective,(Für Uns) > theories about, and we see the uncanny likeness with orthodox > MOQ: Quality as an indefinable reality with the MOQ a mere > theory. > > 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/
