Bo, SA, Ron, Interesting change of tone there Bo ?
But if all you are saying is that any metaphysics has an axiomatic unprovable-assertion / inexplicable-entity at its core - then "Hear, hear." Do you think Ron and/or SA are missing that ? Ian On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 9:43 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 9 May 2008 at 13:00, Heather Perella wrote: > > > SA: 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? > > You must be denser than the Adirondack woods. Do you think > that a metaphysics can start without one or more axioms? And > accusing ME of the DQ/SQ just being an axiom!! I have been > around this discussion under the impression of the participants > knowing the basics of philosophy, but must obviously revise > this. > > 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. > > In ZAMM Pirsig uses Euclid's geometry to show that E. tried to > hide one axiom as "natural", namely the fifth. > > 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. > > 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. > While I think he should have faced the bull and declared the > DQ/SQ as his axiom that would create a better metaphysics. > > 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. > > Nuff said > > 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/
