Hi all MD John Carl had said: > > : ...there is a large piece of the metaphysical pie missing here (at > > least to my mind) and that is how to get from DQ to sq. I've even heard > > DQ described as chaos - as in chaotic change is "better" than static > > good and that just doesn't make sense. There seems to my reasoning to be > > a logical need for "good" patterning in order for any meaning at all to > > arise - for the inorganic elements of a chemistry professor to organize > > themselves or for the arising analogies of intellect to match closely > > the Reality they are describing.
Right you are John. The MOQ is the dynamic/static metaphysics which replaces the subject/object metaphysics, and this configuration spells its VALUE, to speak about what reality is before a metaphysical divide makes no sense. Therefore the current treatment of DQ (writing it with capital Q) is like yelping about God's greatness among the "semitic" religions. There is no God without (a) World. There truly is a "logical need for "good" (static) patterns in order for any meaning to arise.." It's encouraging that there are genuine thinkers on this site. Then DMB wrote: > Well, the idea that intellect should match the reality it describes is > known as the correspondence theory of truth and is the classic example > of what objectivity means. I would say that the notion of there being a word independent of what people thinks about it is what OBJECTIVITY means. From this follows inevitable that there are subjective minds that notoriously gives (=unreliable) interpretations of the said world. Thus subject and object are inextricable connected, you can't have one without the other. But SOM believes that they are realms of their own and why it constantly produces paradoxes (Platypus) > It is the theory of truth that goes with subject-object metaphysics, > where the understanding of the subject "corresponds" to objective > reality. But the kind of empiricism that Pirsig subscribes to reject > objectivity and the correspondence theory of truth. The ground of > reality is not an objective material structure but pure experience > itself. Yes the MOQ rejects objectivity, but Jeez it rejects subjectivity too. It rejects SOM wholesalely and relegates it the role of its own static intellectual level. Thereby the metaphysical M is moved to MOQ's Dynamic/Static configuration (just like John said someplace else). > Since this radical empiricism says that subject and objects are > secondary, are concepts derived from experience, we ought not imagine > this primary experience as subjective or as experience OF an objective > reality. That would make subjects and objects primary and the > experience secondary. The MOQ reverses that and thereby demotes > subjects and objects. Instead of being the metaphysical basis that > makes experience possible, they are construed as concepts that follow > from experience, as one of many possible ways to interpret experience. Here is the monster-platypus that the latter-day Pirsig has created by clinging to William James. Originally he (as Phaedrus in ZAMM) did not speak about subjects and objects as "concepts" (Jesus, what's not concepts if we enter that field?) And from this follows the arch- unmoqish notion of Quality as "objective" and concepts as "subjective" and we are up to our neck in SOM again. > There's another point that might help. In the MOQ, truth and meaning > are static intellectual patterns. Truth (that there is a reality independent of man) and it's counterpoint "man the measure" aren't just static intellectual pattern, but the very static intellectual level itself. I like DMB for writing coherent posts - it's not easy among all these "twitterbugs" - but that he has ursuped the role as a MOQ teacher is a tragedy, he may be a Pirsig adherer, but the MOQ he teaches is far from Phaedrus original version (where "intellect" is SOM) whis IS the revolutionary aspect. Bodvar 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/
