Hi Bo (Marsha mentioned) --
You know, I've been reading your posts regularly for three years and, like
Marsha, have never really understood your argument with Pirsig. Each
message is articulated in clear English and treats the alleged issue a bit
differently than the last, but I still don't see what the issue is.
For example, on 2/9 at 2:46 AM, you write:
OK, the basic argument in ZAMM is a pre-existing reality
before the subject becomes aware of the objective world.
Thus the pre-something (now called Quality) must necessarily
be the DQ that spawns static qualities. In the first sketch the
static part was just the S/O (called "intellect"). The mystery is:
Why postulate that DQ spawns the MOQ and remains
unscathed outside of metaphysics?
I see no problem defined in your first three sentences. Only in the final
sentence do you allude to a problem ("mystery'), and it seems to be one of
your own making. Where does Pirsig postulate that DQ spawns the MOQ? The
MOQ is a metaphorical theory "spawned" by a philosopher, not by DQ. Giving
you the benefit of the doubt, I have to assume what you are really asking
is: How does the appearance of difference and contrariety arise from a pure
(undifferentiated) source? Indeed, this is the central paradox of
metaphysics, and the multi-level, multi-pattern scheme proposed by Pirsig
does not address it.
You then elaborate on the "mystery" as a "language" problem ...
"Before language" is valid in the MOQ where the basic distinction
is Dynamic/Static and where language can be a static social pattern,
but not in the SOM where the basic distinction (in this case) is
language/reality. SOM's paradox-creating nature immediately shows
that nothing can be before language. Anthony obviously spots the
flaw, but merely reinforces it.
If the problem is one of language or semantics, it can be remedied simply by
restating the premises more logically. If it is a conceptual problem,
however, either the theory itself is wrong or we do not comprehend it
correctly. You say that Anthony "spots the flaw but merely reinforces it."
What Anthony reinforces is the fact that the MOQ is a set of (man-made)
concepts, which your previous assertion "DQ spawns the MOQ" seems to ignore:
[Quoting Ant]:
"This is not to say conceptualisation in itself is a problem (for
the MOQ is a set of concepts) but the confusion of concepts
for reality itself is."
Have you not confused the concepts with the reality? Isn't this precisely
your "problem"?
You conclude ...
Conceptualisation is very much a problem in the language/reality
variety of SOM that Pirsig suddenly wants the MOQ to be subordinate
to ...shown in the Quality/MOQ super- metaphysics. What medium
did Pirsig use to show that there is a Quality outside/before language?
Again, Bo, the ENTIRE THEORY is named "Metaphysics of Quality". Thus, the
MOQ cannot logically be subordinated to its theoretical components -- either
in language or in reality. That words are used to explain a philosophy does
not mean that existence is a "language/reality" dualism. (That's an
artificial duality we can do without!) If you're equating language with
Intellect, Pirsig listed it as the first of four blocks (levels) in his box
of static qualities. And he specifically placed Dynamic Qualilty outside
the box, providing the following explanation:
"You will notice that Dynamic Quality is not shown in any block.
It is in the background. This seems the best way to represent it.
It is not only outside the blocks, it pervades them but it goes on
where the blocks leave off." -- [RMP: SODV paper]
The only "mystery" to me is why Pirsig's presentation knocks you off your
seat.
Essentially perplexed,
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/
