[dmb]
> Pirsig says that the MOQ is to be distinguished from the Quality it > talks about. [Krimel] > All experience gets rendered into concepts. If it didn't we > couldn't talk about it at all. [Dan] > (1) In the MOQ, everything is a concept. That's why it's so important > to understand the part in ZMM concerning gravity. (2) There is no > such thing as gravity but that which we give a name. Does (1) mean that everything in reality is a concept or that everything in a metaphysics is a concept? The latter seems correct. The former seems ill-conceived. Is the argument?: a) There is a concept for everything that exists. b) :. Everything that exists is a concept. This is invalid. My hackneyed examples: Dinosaurs existed millions of years ago; the concept of dinosaur did not. Mazes are complex; the concept of maze is simple. [Dan] > In the MOQ, inorganic patterns of value. . .correspond to objective, > external reality but exist only in our imagination as per ZMM. The evolution of patterns must take place where they exist, so on this view the evolution must take place in our imagination. This seems a backward step for the MoQ. "The world has no existence whatsoever outside the human imagination." [RMP, ZMM] I think Pirsig is speaking metaphorically here. Otherwise, I see philosophical problems of solipsism, skepticism, etc. looming for the MoQ. [Dan] > I would say that the MOQ allows contradictory views to coexist since > although the levels are discrete, they operate all at the same time. I don’t think the MoQ levels operating at the same time leads to any contradiction. Do you have an example? To me a better way to see it is that the MoQ allows various ways to structure the world, which need not contradict each other. Craig 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/
