Hello Andre, What Bo asserts is that MoQ is indeed reality I think he bases it on the assumption that scientific objectivism makes, that it's metaphysical assumptions are reality, based on this alone Bodvar makes his stand. Pirsig goes into great detail why this outlook is narrow and limited: "Unlike subject-object metaphysics the Metaphysics of Quality does not insist on a single exclusive truth. If subjects and objects are held to be the ultimate reality then we're permitted only one construction of things - that which corresponds to the 'objective' world - and all other constructions are unreal. But if Quality or excellence is seen as the ultimate reality then it becomes possible for more than one set of truths to exist. Then one doesn't seek the absolute Truth.' One seeks instead the highest quality intellectual explanation of things with the knowledge that if the past is any guide to the future this explanation must be taken provisionally; as useful until something better comes along. One can then examine intellectual realities the same way one examines paintings in an art gallery, not with an effort to find out which one is the 'real' painting, but simply to enjoy and keep those that are of value. There are many sets of intellectual reality in existence and we can perceive some to have more quality than others, but that we do so is, in part, the result of our history and current patterns of values."
The interesting thing is, Bodvar does not understand most of what Pirsig says, so he sloughs off the parts he does not get. The parts that do fit into his understanding he claims possesion of as the "real" MoQ that no one understands except for him. A byproduct of him being an "antenna" of superior understanding. Talk about your "besserweissers"!! He could claim MoQ as reality based on the statement Pirsig makes that experience is reality and the ideas of the MoQ then are most certainly "reality" but that also opens the door to any other idea is "reality". Then he'd have to accept the "many truths" statement above, which he does not seem to be willing to do. -Ron ----- Original Message ---- From: Andre Broersen <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Sat, December 19, 2009 11:00:21 PM Subject: Re: [MD] Why isn't the hot stove obvious? Bodvar to Andre: But Pirsig wanted to be more Taoist than Laotse and made the error of declaring the MOQ part of "what can be named". But for Chrissake the MOQ merely says that DQ is dynamic, and saying this can't be any "naming". One may be too smart ("A bridge too far"). Andre: 'Pirsig...declaring the MoQ part of 'what can be named' an error? Pirsig himself says that it is important to keep all concepts out of DQ. Even suggesting that Quality is 'dynamic' is a transgression. Dynamic Quality is not this/not that. Bodvar: I don't know what have gone into you all not seeing the futility of declaring language to be the "desecrator" of the holy unity. But this is the William James pollution of the MOQ (that the divide is Dynamic/Conceptual) that Pirsig adapted in his desperate longing for an academical "friend". Andre: Maybe you need to explain this once more Bodvar but to suggest a static part 'belonging' to Quality (i.e. SQ) is already a transgression of the ineffable. Not one moment is an exact same copy of the 'previous' moment. It is only convenient to pretend it is. In other words, it is a high quality intellectual PoV. imho Andre, the stubborn Dutchie living and working in the Middle Land. 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/
