Hi Dan
15 Mar. you wrote:
> Thank you for writing. I notice you capitalize Quality so in a way
> you're correct. But everyone knows what quality is. That's Robert
> Pirsig's great insight, and that's why quality works where many
> other terms do not.
Before Pirsig "...everyone knows what quality is" was not so
obvious and there are other grand concepts - "beauty" for instance
- and I would guess that "..everyone knows what beauty is" is just
as obvious. Pirsig even hints to a "code of Art=Beauty" beyond the
4th.level meaning that IT may be the dynamic everything beyond
the static levels.
I just point to this because I see the Dynamic/Static split to be the
Quality of the MOQ because it makes for a better, non-
paradoxical, world than the Subject/Object split. Consequently I
dislike Pirsig's Quality/MOQ meta-metaphysics, the two are
identical
> I would ask you to please provide references for your "meta-level"
> but I know it's impossible; there are no references anywhere in Mr
> Pirsig's work that point to the MOQ as a "meta-level." I see you
> twisting certain passages into what their author never intended, and
> then claiming they support your own interpretation.
You really are a "bible-thumper" Of course Pirsig says that the
MOQ is secondary - a mere intellectual pattern - but it is the
Metaphysics of Quality that creates the static intellectual level and
by no twist of logic can that level "contain" the MOQ. Ref. the
container example. If you find THAT un-problematic ...phew!
> The last time I looked, Robert Pirsig's name was on the cover of
> both ZMM and LILA. He is the author and inventor of the MOQ. I have
> a massive amount of respect. So if it is your contention that ZMM
> and LILA are not a product of Mr Pirsig's mind, then where did they
> come from? Why is his name on the books?
Do you think a metaphysics (metaphysics=reality) can be copy-
righted? But your loyalty is impressive.
> No, I don't hate criticisms of LC's annotations; they are not mine.
> I welcome them. I enjoy dissecting the annotations, comparing them
> to Mr Pirsig's previous work to find contradictions. i recall that
> Struan Hellier found a problem with one of the annotations and it
> was rectified (with Mr Pirsig's permission).
> What I dislike is someone referring to the LC annotations in the
> dismissive fashion that you are wont to do. I've asked you in the
> past to please specify which annotations you have problems with and
> why but you've never taken the time.
The 97 is mentioned, then there is 102
I see today more clearly than when I wrote the SODV
paper that the key to integrating the MOQ with science is
through philosophic idealism, which says that objects grow
out of ideas, not the other way around.
To associate the MOQ with SOM's "subjective over objective" is its
death, but this "all is ideas" seems to be the latter-day Pirsig's
wont.
Since at the most primary level the observed and the
observer are both intellectual assumptions, the paradoxes
of quantum theory have to be conflicts of intellectual
assumption, not just conflicts of what is observed.
"At the most primary level" must mean the metaphysical and the
DQ/SQ becomes "intellectual assumptions" which follows from the
"MOQ an intellectual pattern" sentence that follows from the faulty
Quality/MOQ thesis.
Except in the case of Dynamic Quality, what is observed
always involves an interaction with ideas that have been
previously assumed.....
How come that DQ is exempted from the idea-interaction? DQ is
after all part and parcel of the MOQ. According to Pirsig's Gravity
example there was no quality (in the MOQ sense) before the
MOQ.
The MOQ is a fantastic achievement. It creates a new reality at an
infinitely greater scale than Newton's which was a mere
adjustment inside - what in moqish is - the static intellectual level.
It rejects the S/O split that among many has spawned the
"ideas/reality" one. The illusion that keeps it from being realized is
the wish to make the SOM-MOQ transition a smooth intellectual
adjustment. Intellect in SOM means the idea-interaction realm. In
MOQ the 4th. level is the SOM itself. And that is a leap over a
bottomless chasm.
> I know you're hung up on your SOL interpretation. I think that is
> your loss. In your zeal to spread the SOL word you continually
> overlook not only the LC annotations but Mr Pirsig's second book
> LILA. It appears to me you've seized on a few select passages from
> ZMM to support your thesis while ignoring the main thrust of the
> MOQ.
I don't know if you have noticed, but DMB is slowly coming round.
When he started to "translate" ZAMM to moqish the SOL is
obvious. Steve Peterson has left (one doesn't admit anything, just
leaves) and Arlo discusses God knows what except the MOQ so
you are soon the last of the orthodox.
> I don't mean to sound harsh and I am sorry if my words come across
> that way. As I said, I have a great deal of respect for Robert
> Pirsig and his work, and that extends to his annotations in LILA'S
> CHILD. If anyone wants to criticize his work, they better be
> prepared to do more than talk a good game.
No hard feelings Dan, your loyalty is with the person Pirsig, mine is
with the MOQ which isn't an idea out of the his mind, but out the
intellectual level that RMP was an unstable pattern of.
In my (not sufficiently humble to be regarded as polite) opinion
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/
