Hi Ham
Magnus:
Another way to express the DQ/SQ split is to say that
it's the difference between "being" and "becoming". If we compare this
to SOM's first split (the S/O split),
it's actually rather self-evident that the DQ/SQ split is more
basic than S/O.
That depends on how you define "being". If being is your primary
source, its experience as patterns is simply explained as a result of
the S/O split. This is the ontology of Pantheism which views everything
in the universe as a part of the Whole (Being). Pirsig does define the
primary source as Being, however, and neither do I.
I guess you mean that Pirsig "doesn't", right?
Anyway, I just said that "being" is one half of the first split, i.e. it's *not*
the primary source, just half of it.
The DQ/SQ split however, does. It's the difference between
what is and what may come to be. I can't think of any more
basic split.
That's fine, provided your concept of 'being' is not substance or
matter. For "what comes to be" (existence) is substantive and
differentiated, whereas "what is" is the undifferentiated potential for
being.
Of course. With 'being', I include stuff like gravity, dreams, the taste of
bananas, even space and time.
I applaud your attempt to "re-engineer" metaphysics into Pirsig's
euphemistic philosophy, Magnus, but I don't think you can do this with
Quality as the fundamental essence. Aesthetic value presupposes a
sensible subject and therefore does not transcend the S/O divide.
Ham! I'm sure you've read this lots of times before, but I'll try to rephrase it
especially for you.
Your view of the Quality event seems to be one human observing some object, and
since that human is "sensible", it can place various aesthetic value on that
observation.
However, and please Ham, this is very important and not something you can
disprove with epistemological reasoning.
Quality, as used in the MoQ, does *not* require a "sensible" subject. Quality is
involved when a teacher is valuing english essays, when dogs are detecting drugs
on an airport, *and* when a ball is dropped and starts falling to the ground.
Pirsig is very clear on this in Lila:
"In the Metaphysics of Quality 'causation' is a metaphysical term that can be
replaced by 'value.' To say that 'A causes B' or to say that 'B values
precondition A' is to say the same thing. The difference is one of words only.
Instead of saying 'A magnet causes iron filings to move toward it,' you can say
'Iron filings value movement toward a magnet.'"
Your analysis brings to the surface some logical problems in Pirsig's
thesis that need to be resolved. And that's a significant first step in
my opinion.
The logical problems are not inherent in the MoQ. They only appear when using
non-MoQ interpretations for MoQ terms.
Magnus
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/
