“All metaphysical systems are static intellectual patterns. There isn't any other kind of metaphysics.” This is so because the MOQ describes intellect itself as a set of static patterns.
RMP, Baggini interview<http://www.philosophersnet.com/magazine/pirsig_transcript.htm> On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 1:17 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: Hello Steve > > 13 Aug. thou spaketh: > > > I think there is a difference in the way we are using to the term, and > > I could easily be wrong about how metaphysics has traditionally been > > thought of since I'm not expert on philosophy, but I tend to think > > that something different is going on with Pirsig other than > > metaphysics as usual. We have Pirsig actually saying that he has > > created a new metaphysics! Has anyone else ever made that claim? > > I like that Steve, after ten years finally this realization! > > > Pirsig has offered us polar coordinates (MOQ) with the suggestion that > > we may find it better than rectangular coordinates (SOM), while the > > idea of metaphysics had always, as far as I know, precluded the idea > > that there even can be more than one metaphysics. > > The term "metaphysics" is Aristotle's and presupposes an objective > immutable reality "out there" that we subjectively may find the lay-out > of. This is what the MOQ opposes and delivers an alternative to with > its dynamic/static divide, therefore I'm uneasy about the map/terrain > metaphor as it sort of re-introduces the S/O. The MOQ rather says > that reality IS the DQ/SQ aggregate .... and that Aristotle's > reality/theory in all its shades is its own intellectual level. > > > As far as I know, metaphysics is not taken to be the creation of ways > > of talking about reality/experience but the search for THE way of > > talking about it, i.e. trying to find the language in which the > > universe itself demands to be spoken about and to find the correct > > sentences that the universe demands be said about it. > > I agree. F.ex. to say that the deepest truth is that there is no truth is > self-defeating and why I have said that language must be kept out of > metaphysics. The Jamesian "Reality/Concept" - what Pirsig adopted in > by the "Quality/MOQ" form - is untenable. Language is the stage > where everything is played out. > > > Is not Pirsig then using the word "metaphysics" in an ironistic way > > in contrast with the search for such Truth? I'd like to read him as > > an ironist anyway. > > The MOQ is a meta-metaphysics compared to the Aristotelian- > Academical term, but as I try to convey, it robs SOM of its "M" rank > and thereby degrades it to a sub-set of its own. Some people show > their inability to pull themselves by hair or bootstraps out of SOM by > not seeing this "transformation". To move from Newton physics to > Einstein's needs a set of equations called Lorenz Transformation, the > SOL is such a procedure from SOM to MOQ. > > IMO > > 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/ > 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/
