At 02:44 PM 6/23/2009, you 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
Ham,
I haven't the slightest idea what you want. Who cares what
"classical philosophers" regard as metaphysics? What good does it do
to look backwards? The MOQ is a synthesis of Eastern wisdom and
Western intellect. Dynamic Quality is Ultimate Reality, static
quality is conventional reality. Quarks and leptons are static
patterns of value within conventional reality. I'm sure you
understand the difference between an independent TiTs and patterns.
An individual can directly experience Dynamic Quality, but cannot
know it. Static quality (conventional reality), made up of static
patterns of value, can be known only by conceptually constructing the
knowledge and not by direct experience. Thinking subjects and
objects are fundamental reality is an illusion. As far as I
understand it, RMP denied an independent self, not the individual.
I do not consider Dynamic Quality chaos in any sense, but I have not
had Mr. Pirsig's experiences and cannot know what he meant when he
used the term.
Marsha
_____________
"He who neglects the present moment throws away all he has."
(Friedrich von Schiller)
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/
