On 13 Dec 2009 at 12:34, Ham Priday wrote: > > Greetings, Platt -- > > > [Quoting Pirsig]: > > "You are correct in saying that the revolutionary assertion of the > > Metaphysics of Quality is that "Quality' or "value" is the fundamental > > constituent of the universe. However, the classification of metaphysics > > into monism, dualism and pluralism, seems to me to be an arbitrary > > classification where none is needed. The Metaphysics of Quality is all > > three: Quality is the monism. Static quality and Dynamic Quality are > > the dualism, and the four levels of static quality contain a pluralism > > of things." > > > > Here we see the beauty of the MOQ. It covers all the philosophical > > bases. And now I see that my error in attempting to reconcile the > > intellectual level with the MOQ was to see it only from the > > static/Dynamic split. But, I have an excuse. Our language, the means > > by which we find and communicate meaning, passionately embraces > > the subject/object division, so passionately in fact that we can only > > escape its grip with colossal effort. ... > > Let's look at this Pirsig comment. He asserts that the classification of > metaphysics into dualism and pluralism is "arbitrary" and not needed. Yet, > the division between intellectual awareness and experiential otherness is a > dualism, and the physical universe is pluralistic. If "Quality (Value) is > the monism," as he says, how do we arrive at the intellect that divides it > into patterns of experience? Even if the "patterned" (pluralistic) > universe is an "illusion", it is our awareness of reality. By definition a > monism cannot contain a pluralism. Reality is ultimately either absolute or > divided. > > Unrealized Value is an oxymoron. Quality must be realized for it to exist, > and in order to experience Value (as 'qualia') we must divide it. Therefore > the operandus modi of conscious sensibility is differentiation. I accept > Pirsig's ontology insofar as it posits Value as "the fundamental constituent > of the universe." But intellectually "leveling" Quality is not a magic > wand that turns it into a monism. We cannot posit Quality as the > fundamental ground of a "monistic" reality if the values we experience are > "pluralistic". I submit that this is an equivocation on the author's part. > He makes no allowance for a transcendent Reality that IS a monism. His > alleged "metaphysics" is not a metaphysics at all, but a euphemized paradigm > of experiential reality (i.e., the differentiated existential universe).
Dear Ham, So long as you insist on separating the experiencer from the experienced you will never be persuaded by the MOQ. Your assumption of that dualism is challenged by no less a light than the philosopher William James who wrote: "This paper and the seeing of it are two names for one indivisible fact." You may challenge James right back if you wish. But if I must choose between Priday and James I hope you won't be offended if I choose James. I would guess that Pirsig would choose James, too. But the three of us could be wrong. Cordially, Platt 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/
