Hi Bo,
Bo:
I see Reality=DQ/SQ as MOQ's basic axiom, unless one ends with a
Quality/MOQ (as words) split that (Craig's quote from LILA about
William James shows) is the S/O one.
I don't understand most of that, but Reality=DQ/SQ is not the MOQ's
basic axion. Relity=Quality is.
Bo:
Not describing how things really are, is impossible. Forwarding a
theory that opens by declaring "..this is NOT how things are" is
stillborn.
Not at all.
Albert Einstein:
"Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not,
however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world. In our
endeavour to understand reality we are somewhat like a man trying to
understand the mechanism of a closed watch. He sees the face and the
moving hands, even hears it ticking, but he has no way of opening the
case. If he is ingenious he may form some picture of the mechanism
which could be responsible for all the things he observes, but he may
never be quite sure his picture is the only one which could explain
his observations. He will never be able to compare his picture with
the real mechanism and he cannot even imagine the possibility of the
meaning of such a comparison."
Saying that the MOQ is not trying to say what things actually are is
what it's like to not be able to comprehend the meaning of comparing a
scientific model like F=ma with the universe or comparing words about
Quality and Quality itself.
It is rather SOM that has no problem with making such comparisons--at
least one taking the SOMist view thinks so. Newton's Laws of
Gravitation are part of objective reality or are they just subjective?
Pirsig points out the absurdity of either position in ZAMM.
LILA:
"But if Quality or excellence is seen as the ultimate reality then
it becomes possible for more than one set of truths to
exist. Then one doesn't seek the absolute "Truth." One seeks
instead the highest quality intellectual explanation of things
with the knowledge that if the past is any guide to the future
this explanation must be taken provisionally; as useful until
something better comes along. One can then examine
intellectual realities the same way he examines paintings in an
art gallery, not with an effort to find out which one is the "real"
painting, but simply to enjoy and keep those that are of
value.
Bo:
I guess it's SOM which is addressed above, but this isn't just the
objectivist (truth) camp, but the subjectivists as well and the latter does
not care so much about absolute truth. However what both camps
agree about is that reality is split the subject/object way. Regarding
many truths there's hardly a scientist that believes his theory is eternal
so even science is "provisional".
Steve:
I don't think there are really two camps. There is just one
schitzophrenic camp trying to reconcile experience with SOM.
Bo:
Anyway, this is what the MOQ
resolves by making the SOM its own topmost level (reduced to the
value of the S/O) and says that the reason why it produces paradoxes
is its static limitation. The above from LILA isn't wrong but very
cumbersome.
Steve:
Let's be clear, the MOQ does not make SOM the intellectual level. Only
the unnecessary and wrong-headed SOLAQI interpretation does this. The
intellectual level of Pirsig's MOQ is the collection of all
intellectual patterns of value.
Bo before:
Steve's "In the MOQ, a metaphysics is not an object or a subject"
brings "metaphysics" out of SOM-land, but then to say that "...it is
a collection of ideas" brings it back again and "..it is not
distinct from reality" retrieves it. It's like LILA that starts with
the correct Q view of metaphysics as reality itself "No one living
in an ordered universe is outside metaphysics", but then switches to
reality as the objective part and metaphysics (the MOQ included)
the subjective part .. and SOM rules the waves.
Steve:
How is recognizing that the MOQ is a collection of ideas SOM?
Steve:
How is recognizing that Pirsig's work is a set of ideas a regression
into SOM? What else is Pirsig's body of work supposed to be?
Bo:
Ideas are supposed to be contents of (a) mind and in a metaphysics
that reject's the mind/matter divide the said content must be
something else, and IMO the correct transformation is making ideas
part of the intellectual level's "S" (of its S/O aggregate)
Steve:
In the MOQ ideas are not contents of the mind, they are patterns of
value. The MOQ is a pattern of value. What else could it be? According
to the MOQ everything is either a pattern of value or DQ.
Steve:
Pirsig doesn't play "subjective/objective" in the ontological sense,
ever. Drawing distinctions about experience and intellectual
descriptions of experience is not subjective/objective.
Bo:
Well as the James' quote shows he just does that, "reality/concepts" is
a S/O variety.
I'm not sure what quote you are referring to, but you haven't
addressed my comment. You keep saying that drawing distinctions
between experience and intellectual dscriptions of experience is SOM,
but that is not at all the equivalent of saying that reality's primary
dividision is between subjects and objects or that knowledge is either
subjective or objective. You are trying to solve a problem that isn't
there.
Steve:
It is merely the recognition that such intellectual descriptions are a
part but not the whole of experience. Ideas need to cohere with other
ideas and with other experience. Saying so does not mean that any of
that is subjective or objective. It is just experience with no subjects
or objects presupposed.
Bo:
Dearest Steve. I you now say that "intellect as language" was the
MOQ's birth-place, yes, it WAS because "intellect as language" is
SOM's "intellect", but MOQ's 4th. LEVEL is the last and highest static
value stage and can't be MOQ's home.
Steve:
The MOQ levels refer to types of patterns of value. I don't know where
"stages" or "homes" fit into that conception.
You have some fundamental misunderstandings that are standing in the
way. To summarize...
First, in the MOQ, a metaphysics is words about reality not reality
itself. Second, the levels are not stages or whatever you are thinking
but rather types of patterns of value. Third, intellectual patterns
are not to be equated with SOM. This is a category error. Also,
intellectual patterns are not necessarily concerned with
subjective/objective knowledge distinctions. They are simply ideas or
patterns of thought or manipulations of symbols that stand for
patterns of experience.
Best,
Steve
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/
