On Tuesday 23 June 2009 12:51 PM Ham writes to Platt, Marsha: <snip> > 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. > > Thanks for your time and, hopefully, your understanding, > Ham
Hi Ham, Platt, Marsha and All, When you say: ³the S/O split is the fundamental reality of existence² are you claiming that existence comes in two flavors S and O? Why only two flavors? Why not four flavors, seven flavors? Or is existence not fundamental to different orders? Is the existence of a flea different from the existence of a pea? Is the ³sensible agent² another level of existence? Is metaphysics determined by how I define things? What is a definition if it does not include an allusion to existence? Joe On 6/23/09 11:44 AM, "Ham Priday" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Marsha, Platt [Ron mentioned] -- > > > [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." > > 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. > > If we insist on being reductionists, we need to acknowledge that fundamental > division of existence beyond which all else is speculation. Although > Descartes is no longer fashionable among the elitists, his Cogito stands as > a lasting reminder that existence is an experiential duality. > > Ron recently quoted LILA to reveal Phaedrus's train of thought on this > issue: > > "But he realized that sooner or later he was going to have to stop carping > about how bad subject-object metaphysics was and say something positive for > a change. Sooner or later he was going to have to come up with a way of > dividing Quality that was better than subjects and objects. He would have to > do that or get out of metaphysics entirely. It's all right to condemn > somebody else's bad metaphysics but you can't replace it with a metaphysics > that consists of just one word." > > The problem with this line of reasoning is that metaphysics is not just > "words" (one or many) but concepts explained by words. Pirsig tried to make > the seven-letter word Quality a metaphysical concept, which it cannot be > without an ontology to support it. So, "to come up with a way of dividing > Quality that was better than subjects and objects," he substituted the > adjectives "static" and "dynamic". Then, under the influence of > native-American culture supplemented with a little peyote, he had an > epiphany of sorts. > > "To cling to Dynamic Quality alone apart from any static patterns is to > cling to chaos. He saw that much can be learned about Dynamic Quality by > studying what it is not rather than futilely trying to define what it is. > Static quality patterns are dead when they are exclusive, when they demand > blind obedience and suppress Dynamic change. But static patterns, > nevertheless, provide a necessary stabilizing force to protect Dynamic > progress from degeneration. Although Dynamic Quality, the Quality of > freedom, creates this world in which we live, these patterns of static > quality, the quality of order, preserve our world. Neither static nor > Dynamic Quality can survive without the other." > > 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. > > 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. > > Thanks for your time and, hopefully, your understanding, > 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/ 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/
