Hi Steve, I can only believe that in spite of the problems, when RMP goes on to create a metaphysics he trying to define reality to the best of his explanatory ability and is not writing a fairy tale. So I agree with Bo, RMP, in the MoQ, is describing reality.
I think the MoQ represents reality to be Quality(Dynamic & static). That's more than just a general branch of philosophy. That's a specific view. It's up to you to verify his insights through experience. Marsha On Jan 13, 2010, at 11:54 AM, Steven Peterson wrote: > Hi Marsha, Bo, All, > > Marsha: >> I still like to hear an agreed upon definition of metaphysics. > > The issue between Bo and I is that we don't agree on the meaning of > the word. I think what's of issue is the more specific question of > what the "M" in Pirsig's philosophy "the MOQ" means. We should > consider what Pirsig himself says he means by the term "metaphysics." > > Here is the passage in Lila where he talks about metaphysics in general: > > "Metaphysics was an area of study that had interested him more than > any other as an undergraduate philosophy student in the United States > and later as a graduate student in India....Metaphysics is what > Aristotle called the First Philosophy. It's a > collection of the most general statements of a hierarchical structure > of thought. On one of his slips he had copied a definition of it as > "that part of philosophy which deals with the nature and structure of > reality." It asks such questions as, "Are the objects we perceive real > or illusory? Does the external world exist apart from our > consciousness of it? Is reality ultimately reducible to a single > underlying substance? If so, is it essentially spiritual or material? > Is the universe intelligible and orderly or incomprehensible and > chaotic?"" > > Steve: > So there you have your definition straight from Pirsig. Bo of course > disgrees. He says that metaphysics IS reality. Some philospphers may > use metaphysics the way Bo uses it, while others perhaps agree with > Pirsig's definition, but that isn't of ussue. It doesn't really matter > what metaphysics REALLY means in this discussion. It only matters how > Pirsig uses the term in the phrase that he coined: "the Metaphysics of > Quality." > > Again, the question should be, "What does Pirsig mean when he calls > his philosophy "a metaphysics"?" First of all, his use of "a > metaphysics" rather than simply "metaphysics" is an interesting and > unusual use of the term since in the subject-object picture there is > only one correct construction of things--one possible correct > metaphysics. > > But Pirsig has a mystical bent. He says, "Historically mystics have > claimed that for a true understanding of reality metaphysics is too > "scientific." Metaphysics is not reality. Metaphysics is names about > reality. Metaphysics is a restaurant where they give you a > thirty-thousand page menu and no food." > > SOM philosophers have been eating at this restaurant for thousands of > years. Since Bo agrees with the SOMers that metaphysics is reality, he > is looking to the MOQ as the one true understanding of reality. While > Andre wants to paint Bo in this regard as the true believer in this > forum, he is just one more customer like the rest of us at the > restaurant with no food. Bo is just the one who doesn't know it. > > And becuase he doesn't know it, he is the sort that Pirsig is > channelling when he says, "A metaphysics must be divisible, definable > and knowable, or there isn't any metaphysics. Since a metaphysics is > essentially a kind of dialectical definition and since Quality is > essentially outside definition, this means that a "Metaphysics of > Quality" is essentially a contradiction in terms, a logical > absurdity." > > In other words, from the SOM perspective, the MOQ is no true > metaphysics (a logical absurdity in fact), but we already knew that. > However, from the MOQ perspective--using the word "metaphysics" in > Pirsig's retooling of the term--SOM is also a metaphysics of Quality, > since both SOM and Pirsig's MOQ satisfy Pirsig's definition of > metaphysics: > > "It's a collection of the most general statements of a hierarchical > structure of thought...that part of philosophy which deals with the > nature and structure of reality." > > Marsha: >> Well, in that case I would say the MoQ is a metaphysics that includes within >> it >four static levels of patterns of which the fourth (top) level is >> comprised of >intellectual patterns based on a Subject/Object Metaphysics. > > Steve: > Since metaphysics is just a part of philosophy and since philosphy is > only a subset of all intellectual patterns, then all intellectual > patterns are not based on subject/object metaphysics. > > Best, > Steve > 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/ _______________________________________________________________________ Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars... 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/
