> > SA previously: Bo, this is what I mean. Where up
above do
> you say what dq/sq split is, other than an axiom?
> This is the same as saying lapodocoldieameida is
reality.
> I'm not trying to be harsh, but if you can't say
what
> > dq/sq split is, then lapodocoldieameida might be
> > better instead. Don't you think? Is your reality
> > complete mu, complete denial of everything, such
> as Jainism? If these comments are true, then your
> > reality is truly personal, thus, something I
> wouldn't know about only you would. Is that your
intent?
Bo:
> You must be denser than the Adirondack woods.
SA: Maybe more.
Bo:
> Do you think that a metaphysics can start without
one or more
> axioms? And
> accusing ME of the DQ/SQ just being an axiom!!
SA: Well, when I asked you those questions, that was
the only answer you gave, "it's an axiom". Your words
not mine.
Bo:
> I have been around this discussion under the
impression of the
> participants
> knowing the basics of philosophy, but must
> obviously revise this.
SA: ladeedaaaaday...
Bo:
> Now, my frustration dissipated, I will admit that
> Pirsig actually
> tried to hide the axiomatic nature of his
> Reality=Quality sentence
> by trying to show that quality permeates it all (the
> Hot Stove
> example) but this is futile, what reality is before
> a split is "mu",
> the MOQ starts with the DQ/SQ split and it's best
> stated that this
> is an axiom, but creates a better metaphysics than
> the SOM.
SA: Here you go again. All's your saying is
"DQ/SQ... is an axiom (and) creates a better
metaphysics than the SOM." I'm just quoting you. The
accusation is your reflection in the water. Where do
you say anything differently above?
Bo:
> In ZAMM Pirsig uses Euclid's geometry to show that
> E. tried to
> hide one axiom as "natural", namely the fifth.
SA: I'm not fond and well-versed in geometry, but
geometry isn't philosophy, so..., but it does seem
your taking the philosophy of geometry approach to
explain yourself.
Bo:
> It had long been sought in vain, he said, to
> demonstrate
> the axiom known as Euclid's fifth postulate 268
> and this
> search was the start of the crisis. Euclid's
> postulate of
> parallels, which states that through a given
> point there's
> not more than one parallel line to a given
> straight line, we
> usually learn in tenth-grade geometry. It is one
> of the
> basic building blocks out of which the entire
> mathematics
> of geometry is constructed.
SA: I'm trying to follow you. Your use of a
philosophy of geometry to explain your line of
thought, and as I noted above, geometry is not my
strong suit and I'm not fond of it, so... we'll see
how this pan's out.
Bo:
> When this was demasked by Bolyai and Lobachevski,
> other geometries were suddenly possible.
> I believe Pirsig compared himself with this, he
> himself having
> demasked SOM's hidden axiom that, like Euclid's 5th,
> looked
> obvious but being revealed allowed for a new non-S/O
> metaphysics, something he created, but tried to
> avoid the
> Euclidian trap by making the MOQ a mere theory about
> Quality.
SA: So far a good history of Pirsig's intent
according to Bo. Nothing philosophical that I can see
in your explanation. It seems to be only a history
lesson. Maybe that's your intent, which is fine.
Bo:
> While I think he should have faced the bull and
> declared the
> DQ/SQ as his axiom that would create a better
> metaphysics.
SA: Again, all's your sayin' is "...DQ/SQ (is) a
better metaphyics..." just like mompopdomdayloziafhis
is a better metaphysics. Unless you can say why?
Bo:
> The Quality=Reality can be compared to a geometrican
> declaring
> space to be the real thing and all geometries just
> theories about
> it, but we know that it's the other way round,
> geometries CREATE
> our notion of space.
SA: So, why call it dq/sq split instead of
momomzqqes? What notion are you creating with an
dq/sq split other than "it's a better metaphysics" and
it's an axiom: something you can't argue against? I
can't argue with a madman that he doesn't see ghosts
in the night if he continually says he does? I guess
if he wanted to gather an army to fight these ghosts
with taxpayer money how could we argue against him?
Does this path lead to a ghost? Maybe that's your
intent?
woods,
SA
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
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/
