----- Original Message -----
From: "Ham Priday" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2008 1:32 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Chance
Hi Marsha --
[Ham, previously to Ron]::
I'm mostly about concepts, as I believe you are also. So, as far as we
can help it, let's try not to get mired in word games.
[Marsha]:
Sorry to interrupt, but what is your concept of concepts?
What I mean by a concept is the fundamental idea (i.e., theoretical
conception) as opposed to a descriptive allegory or metaphor about the
idea. For example, "All the world's a stage,
and all the men and women merely players", from Shakespeare's As You Like
it, is a simile for the meaninglessness of human existence. "I am a dream
walking" evokes an emotional impression of life as ephemeral and
non-substantive. These are poetic metaphors intended to convey attitudes
or feelings about reality without offering a theoretical foundation for
the idea.
When we use an esthetic word like Quality in a metaphysical context,
there's a tendency to euphemize it in all sorts of ways that the author
may not have endorsed. This leads to philosophical confusion and a
profusion of word games to see who is more "creative" at exploiting the
word's meaning. Not good for Pirsig.
As you know, I'm a literalist who believes that abstract concepts can be
defined (even in a negative sense, if necessary) in such a way that they
take the form of a logical proposition or axiom. I think there is a need
to do this with philosophy, as witness the efforts of Wittgenstein and
Russell who were recently brought to my attention. It's not that we have
to translate all concepts into mathematical equations, but we should have
a logically structured theory in mind when presenting ideas in s forum
like this.
Designing a hierarchy is a way of categorizing a variety of disparate
elements into a unified framework, and this Pirsig has done very well.
The value concept is significant for an understanding of finite
experience. However, the selection of elements in the MoQ is arbitrary in
that it must accommodate Pirsig's notion of Quality, which itself is
unconventional. He sees patterns as "static" (although they support
evolution and process) and calls the ground of reality "dynamic" (which
imputes change where none is called for.) Moreover, the hierarchy of
static values he presents as an ontology has no comprehensible relation to
the DQ which is fundamental to his thesis. He resists positing a primary
source or cause of the hierarchy on the grounds that "definitions would
destroy the concept". As a result, the MoQ is left without a metaphysical
foundation.
To sum up, there's a place for metaphor and poetry in philosophy, but
metaphysics is not the place. If we're aiming to propose a new and unique
philosophy to the world, it must have a more substantial base to stand on.
Appreciate the question, Marsha.
Best regards,
Ham
Greetings Ham,
Obviously, Quality is the foundation of the MOQ. Quality FORMS concepts.
Concepts are intellectual static patterns of value.
So, you do not like the word Quality. That's your privilege. The word
Quality suits me just fine. Quality, Oneness, Absolute are all terms for
the same indivisible, indefinable and unknowable thing.
So what exactly are your concepts? Intellectual static patterns of value.
Nice try, but not a winner.
Marsha
Marsha
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/
