Ham
It's hard to resist when you talk MOQ.
13 Nov. you cited Ron's:
> > When Pirsig wrote [in LILA] . . .
"This problem of trying to describe value in terms of
substance has been the problem of a smaller container
trying to contain a larger one. Value is not a
subspecies of substance. Substance is a subspecies
of value. When you reverse the containment process
and define substance in terms of value the mystery
disappears: substance is a 'stable pattern of inorganic
values.' The problem then disappears. The world of
objects and the world of values is unified."
> > . . . he mistakenly gave the impression of a meta-objectivism
> > which contradicts the statement of Value or Quality (ultimate
> > reality) as being indefinable ...snip.
First regarding the container analogy. It basically says that a greater
system can't fit into a smaller. For instance Copernicus' cosmology
"contains" the Ptolemaian because it can explain why the crystal
spheres were necessary (to explain the planets' motion) from the
premises of an earth-centered cosmology, while the Ptolemaian can't
contain Copernicus' sun-centered one.
To stick with the cosmology analogy, Ron's "meta-objectivism" is valid
in the sense that the MOQ necessarily must claim that it is the true
sun-centered metaphysics. It also "contains" SOM in the sense of
explaining why the S/O-divide was necessary while confined to the
static intellectual level (=earth-centered). We are now in the same
situation "the Curch of Reason" refusing the new metaphysical shift.
> You folks have cleared up the misconception of a Pirsig's phrase,
> although I doubt that anyone new to the MD would comprehend your
> clarification. So, at the risk of being criticized for departing from
> official MoQ terminology, let me try to translate the problem in plain
> English. Ron rightly contends that Pirsig's Menu/Reality analogy,
> which includes the statement that substance is a "stable pattern of
> inorganic values"
The menu/food analogy was used by Pirsig to press his point that
Quality is the food and the MOQ (just) a menu. A point I don't
subscribe to, the DQ/SQ is the food!
> leads to a false conclusion; namely, that the objective world
> "contains" the value pattern, which makes values an experienced subset
> of physical reality.
The MOQ rejects the "earth-centered" subject/object metaphysics (of
which psychic/physical is one offshoot) and introduces its "sun-
centered" DQ/SQ one, in which all S/O variants are static intellectual
patterns, thus yours above makes no sense. The inorganic level does
not correspond to "substance", nor is it "objective", the mind/matter
and subjective/objective are all confined to the intellectual level.
> In an attempt to rectify this misconception, Bovar has proposed that
> Intellect be regarded as a "universal" level from which patterns,
> relations, and logic are derived.
The MOQ is "out of" SOM, but after being stripped of its metaphysical
rank and the remaining S/O relegated the role of the static intellectual
level it's no more "universal" than any other level while they were
leading edge.
> But Pirsig clearly states that value is not a "subspecies of substance"
> and, in fact, it actually "defines substance".
As said, for Pirsig Quality was the main thing with the MOQ a second-
hand something, hence "Quality defines substance". I maintain that the
MOQ is the main thing and that it "defines" SOM..
> The cause of the confusion, it seems to me, is that although Pirsig
> posited Intellect as the highest of four "static" levels in his
> Metaphysics of Quality (SODV), he never described its epistemology
> relative to Value (DQ) which, because it is "dynamic", transcends
> static level allocations.
SQ's relationship to DQ is like a wave to water. The wave is water too,
yet it is its wave form that counts.
> Despite the confusion, it's apparent that at least three of us
> understand that the "patterning" of Value is conceptual, which is to
> say that objective phenomena are the intellectual constructs of value
> perception.
No confusion anywhere. The patterns being conceptual!!! Christ,
what's not conceptual in the sense of being conveyed by language?
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/
