[Marsha]:
> Reductionism: "Everything in the Universe can be understood in terms
> of quarks and leptons."
[Platt]:
> Nicely summarized. Ask a reductionist "Where do quarks and leptons
> come from?" you'll get a blank stare or from an honest reductionist the
> reply, "Don't ask."
Ham:
Quarks and leptons notwithstanding, the universe is understood in terms of
subjects and objects. This has nothing to do with theoretical physics or
scientific principles. It's an empirical truth that we know from experience.
Just because we don't know precisely what objects are or what the nature of
"selfness" is doesn't mean they don't exist or that they must be "explained
away" in order for us to be "enlightened". That's no philosophical
breakthrough; it's just plain foolishness.
Ron:
These concepts about expereince are in fact "real", what gives them reality is
their
Pragmatic conventionalism. To say that these concepts are illusionary does not
mean
that they do not exist, simply put, they do not exist as conventionally
apprehended.
Conceptual/perceptual understanding is created by their limits of apprehension.
To be aware of this fact, free's one from notions of absolute "truth".
Being free from thinking within one absolute paradigm enables one to take
on different perspectives, finding the mean, or value among many truths.
This, in light of classical western thought, is a huge philosophical
breakthrough.
The foolishness is the belief in one absolute way to distinguish one absolute
truth.
Ham:
The "chaos" he attributed to "Dynamic Quality alone" may have been a result of
his altered state of mind, as there is no logic to support the view that a
primary source is chaotic in the absence of patterns. On the contrary, a pure
source -- Quality, Value, or Essence -- has no disparate elements but is
homogeneous, whereas chaos is defined as "a confused heterogeneous
agglomeration." Obviously, Phaedrus's focus was limited to what was "inside
the box" (experiential patterns) rather than the primary source or nature of
the box. In fact, the MoQ thesis never transcends the physical universe. It is
a hierarchical ontology based on a euphemistic or "romantic" notion of
Quality. As such the MoQ falls seriously short of what classical philosophers
would regard as a metaphysics.
Ron:
It is "classical metaphysics" which is limited, so of course it would see
Quality as irrational and illogical, It does not recognize value. You keep
wanting
to measure millimeters in inches then complain that there is not enough clarity.
Ham:
Whether physical existence is ultimately "real" or not, the S/O split is the
fundamental reality of existence. We can't make a metaphysics out of objective
reality any more than we can impart Quality to it. What is sadly missing in
Pirsig's philosophy is the sensible agent, without which neither quality nor
value can be realized.
Ron:
If the question is raised about the reality of physical existence then it only
stands to "reason"
that the fundemental nature is an assumption, the assumption your arguement
rests on.
So if, by your own admission, that the reality of physical existence is in
question,
it would seem your assumption is also in question. Being in question, it is
hardly the "fact"
of the matter now is it?
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/
