Ron:
I think, that the best way to go about this is to call the SOL interpretation for what it is "an interpretation" one that I think is legitimate but fear is a misinterpretation of Pirsigs original intent. Bodvar invites us to a Logical positivsts view or a meta-objectivism. As several of Marshas Pirsig quotes reveal to us, this was NOT his original intent. Because Bo had every justification to assume his interpretation is viable by virtue of Pirsigs words and their logical conclusions does not mean that his interpretation is correct and reflects the current understanding held by modern Physicists. "Perhaps the view for which the logical positivists are best known is the verifiability criterion of meaning, or verificationism. In one of its earlier and stronger formulations, this is the doctrine that a proposition is "cognitively meaningful" only if there is a finite procedure for conclusively determining whether it is true or false.[9] An intended consequence of this view, for most logical positivists, is that metaphysical, theological, and ethical statements fall short of this criterion, and so are not cognitively meaningful. They distinguished cognitive from other varieties of meaningfulness (e.g.. emotive, expressive, figurative), and most authors concede that the non-cognitive statements of the history of philosophy possess some other kind of meaningfulness." "Logical positivism was essential to the development of early analytic philosophy. The term subsequently came to be almost interchangeable with "analytic philosophy" in the first half of the twentieth century."-Wiki Sorry but Bo' interpretation is behind the times. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism Andre mentioned the obsticle of language, I think this may be overcome through a mindfulness of not allowing logical statements to dominate our thinking, remember MoQ is inductive and holds descriptive sentences as prime not deductive ones. 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/ Andrè, Platt and Bo On 16 Nov. you wrote: Bodvar before: > I think the map/terrain or "understood/presumed reality" analogy is > misleading. Quality isn't the terrain with the MOQ a map - this is > merely more SOM. Andre: > And this was exactly what I was trying to say Bodvar, and I think I > mistakenly blamed your SOL for this through complete > misinterpretation. I apologise and take my hat off for you...if I had > one. Bo: First, many thanks to Platt and you for the vote of confidence in an earlier post, I may sound like a Jesuit, but ever since my ZAMM's days (mid seventies) I felt that here was a thinker that had the mind/matter monster by its throat by making it Quality's creation and calling it "intellect" in his first MOQ. But with LILA the selfsame intellectual (level) had become somewhat diluted, meaning that the throat grip had gone. Also Pirsig's self-effacing "MOQ just another metaphysics" *) in the Aristotelian (SOM) sense of a subjective map of the objective terrain undermines the MOQ and opened up for Marsha-like (just exemplifying, bless her) use of senses as less-than-real varieties of an inconceivable reality out there as an example of MOQ's Static/Dynamic split. *) Quality=Reality doesn't mean anything before the DQ/SQ configuration. The source of much confusion is that Pirsig says that SOM postulates a "reality" which is subject/object-divided. It doesn't! It postulate a S-reality and an O-reality full stop! If SOM had done the former it would have admitted to something ahead of the S/O and thus been a MOQ-like metaphysics. 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/
