Greetings, David --
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...
Your second sentence omits either a noun or a verb to make it clear, but I
take it to mean that I have "read into" the MoQ those "very terms it
rejects", to which I can only plead nolo contendere. That Pirsig omitted
the fundamental concepts of his metaphysics is my major complaint.
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.
Well, what can I add? If he's deliberately chosen to posit a theory without
a metaphysical foundation, we're all the worse for it, aren't we?.
The "incomprehensible relation" between static and dynamic quality,
for example, evaporates when you see that both terms refer to experience.
If DQ is meant to be only experience, then what he's expounded isn't
metaphysics at all. It's a euphemistic paradigm for experiential reality
(i.e., finitude).
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.)
Ditto, the above.
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".
Fair enough. I'm a free-thinking, self-educated philosopher without a
curriculum vitae who finds a celebrated author's Metaphyics of Quality
intentionally lacking a metaphysical foundation. Is my complaint justified?
I'd say you've made my case.
Thanks, David.
--Ham
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/
