On Tuesday 23 June 2009 11:22 PM Ham writes to Marsha, Craig: <snip> > I want what I assume everyone else here wants, Marsha. As I told Ron, I'd > like to see more clarity in the concepts expressed on this forum, leading to > more accord among the participants. There's a tendency to accept Pirsig's > statements dogmatically, which I can't believe was his intention. > Understanding comes from dialectical analysis and fresh insights, not from > quoting scripture as in the game of "Pirsig says". As inspiring and poetic > as the author's novels may be, his thesis is not above repute by > philosophers who have gone before, and his logic is not infallible. We > don't serve the legacy of any philosopher by refusing to challenge his work. > > Quarks and leptons have no value to me, and I see no difference between a > pattern and a thing-in-itself. Both are intellectual constructs. For > someone who has taken eight undergraduate classes in philosophy, I find it > astonishing that you would so readily dismiss all that has gone before. > Craig just presented me with a similar complaint. Responding to my > statement that the MoQ falls short of what classical philosophers would > regard as a metaphysics, he quipped: > >> But not short of what MODERN philosophers regard as metaphysics. > > Philosophical theory is not a cumulative discipline like the physical > sciences. Empirical knowledge changes as we learn more about energy forces > and their affect on the physical universe and its macro and micro > constituents. Philosophy changes as we learn more about synthesizing ideas > of the great thinkers. The work of philosophers throughout the ages > constitutes a body of intellectual thought from which we may draw certain > conclusions and categorize the major concepts as Platonic, Aristotelian, > Cartesian, Kantian, Spenserian, etc. Metaphysics has traditionally been an > important element of these concepts. The value of an idea is timeless, and > it is small-minded to regard an idea as having special significance simply > because it is "modern". <snip> > Which is "the better view", then? I posit Absolute Essence as the > uncreated, undifferentiated, and unchanging source from which all otherness > is negated. Pirsig posits DQ as "the Quality of freedom [that] creates this > world in which we live, these patterns of static quality, the quality of > order [that] preserves our world." Which view has more "explanatory value"? Hi Ham and all,
I read your post and I was impressed! I feel I understand a lot of what you say. As far as ³explanatory value² goes I feel it is more logical to examine existence rather than essence. >From a metaphysical examination of existence, evolution is exposed. Change 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, is a metaphysical concept most clearly explored in an examination of orders in existence, evolution, rather than by an examination of the individuality of essence which can admit no 0 point. If mathematics is essential there is only 1 and everything else is addition. Existence in mathematical terms is 0,1. Existence in knowing essential terms is 1 + 1 the knower and the known, which in an absolute must be denied. I do not accept that I am at the level of an absolute, I only think I am. For essential purposes mathematics is useless. The primacy of mathematics in metaphysical thought today leads to an error in judgment which can only be resolved by an evolutionary study of existential reality, e.g. Pirsig. Aristotle proposed a mathematical structure for the perception of reality, S/O, 1/2/1. He suggested an intentional existence for the mind and a real existence for the body 2. For Aristotle mind 1 and body 1 exist differently but manifest in 1 person. The manifestation of 2 as 1 is the error in the definition by Aristotle of the essence of man. Change has to be according to mathematical logic 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, evolution not to essential logic 2 (body and mind) = 1 man. Evolution is outside mathematics with a metaphysics that states that 1 and 1 can be 1. Evolution is not revealed in addition! The first thought of procreation was that a small homunculus was transferred from the man into the woman and grew until birth. Evolution acknowledges a change of existence. The same material can be found in differing evolutionary orders. Pirsig denies intentional existence. He accepts a direct experience of evolutionary levels. Instead of a mathematical logic in the perception of change, Pirsig proposes an evolutionary logic for Quality DQ/SQ. DQ is undefined and cannot become a term in a mathematical structure of reality, but it is not 0. Pirsig denies the intentional/real structure of existence required for a body/mind distinction. Existence defines reality. Pirsig sees a hierarchy as an evolutionary order in existence. Existence comes in different flavors, evolution. The metaphysics of Aristotle¹s SOM is discredited. The logic of mathematics can only be metaphorical in a description of evolutionary reality. It can accept an evolution in existence by acknowledging the metaphorical nature of mathematics between each level. Bo has gone to great lengths to show that the logic of the MOQ has an inner consistency by enfolding the logic of DQ/SQ into evolution to an intellectual level SOL from the social level of consciousness. Joe On 6/23/09 11:22 PM, "Ham Priday" <[email protected]> wrote: > Which is "the better view", then? I posit Absolute Essence as the > uncreated, undifferentiated, and unchanging source from which all otherness > is negated. Pirsig posits DQ as "the Quality of freedom [that] creates this > world in which we live, these patterns of static quality, the quality of > order [that] preserves our world." Which view has more "explanatory value"? 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/
