Ham said to Marsha: 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.
dmb butts in: Sure, there are opinions about Quality that the author may not endorse but I think the author intended the word to be very broadly applied. It is pervasive enough to include everything. It seems to me that reading the MOQ by way of the very terms it rejects and this naturally leads to confusion... Ham said to Marsha: 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. ...it must have a more substantial base to stand on. dmb continues his obnoxious interruption: Maybe its better to think of quality (all kinds) in terms of experience rather than ontological terms. There are some philosophers who believe the quest to establish some kind of ground or source behind what's known in experience is the worst kind of wild goose chase. I mean, the MOQ is not "left without a metaphysical foundation" because of some oversight. Its a deliberate choice. The "incomprehensible relation" between static and dynamic quality, for example, evaporates when you see that both terms refer to experience. Likewise, the refusal to define DQ doesn't come from a disrespect for logic or rational arguments. That refusal is itself a statement about what DQ is. Its also a statement about the limits of logic and rational argument. And again, this would be about two different kinds of experience. Classical Pragmatists like Dewey and James are like Pirsig in taking non-rational experience to be just as real as any other kind. They're radical empiricists. Experience and reality are the same thing and it is neither possible nor desirable to look for extra-experiential realities or metaphysical fictions. So, there are good reasons why you will find no "metaphysical foundation" in the MOQ. (Unless experience counts as a foundation.) Your critique of the MOQ looks like a Catholic guy criticizing a Protestant for not being Catholic enough. The Protestant would just chuckle and and say, "Yea, I know. That's pretty much the point of being Protestant". Thanks. _________________________________________________________________ Now you can invite friends from Facebook and other groups to join you on Windows Live™ Messenger. Add now. https://www.invite2messenger.net/im/?source=TXT_EML_WLH_AddNow_Now 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/
