Steve, Craig, Andre, Ian, Marsha, and All --
On 1/7/10, Steve said:
The term "metaphysics of Quality" was coined by Pirsig
as a place holder for the philosophy of Robert M Pirsig.
Craig disagreed:
I don't think this is a good way to understand the term
"metaphysics of Quality". It may have started out with this
meaning, but not now. The MoQ has been refined & extended.
Andre was unassuageable:
Yes, you bet, metaphysics in the true MOQ sense is reality,
that's the very point!
Steve then put his argument more explicitly:
Since you equate the MOQ with reality, fitting all of reality into
the intellectual level is a problem for you. But according to
the MOQ, the MOQ is not reality. Quality is reality.
The Metaphysics of Quality is words about reality (Quality)
rather than reality (Quality) itself.
But Marsha was not convinced:
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 [would] still like to hear an agreed upon definition of metaphysics.
Well, that's a legitimate request, and one that deserves to be answered
here, particularly as Pirsig titled his thesis the Metaphysics of Quality.
Metaphysics is commonly defined as that branch of philosophy which examines
the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter,
substance and attribute, fact and value. The term came into use with
Aristotle whose major "contribution" to philosophy was to turn Plato's
idealized Forms into categories of real (i.e., physical) things.
"The first major work in the history of philosophy to bear the title
"Metaphysics" was the treatise by Aristotle that we have come to know by
that name. But Aristotle himself did not use that title or even describe
his field of study as 'metaphysics'; the name was evidently coined by the
first century C.E. editor who assembled the treatise we know as Aristotle's
Metaphysics out of various smaller selections of Aristotle's works. The
title 'metaphysics' - literally, 'after the Physics' - very likely indicated
the place the topics discussed therein were intended to occupy in the
philosophical curriculum. They were to be studied after the treatises
dealing with nature (ta phusika)."
-- [Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]
But the meaning of metaphysics changed in the Middle Ages to convey "what is
beyond the physical". Heidegger subsrequently interpreted the 'meta' in
metaphysics in the sense of 'trans', and metaphysics itself in the sense of
"what is beyond entities", and this interpretation became crucial for the
existentialist phiolsophers of the last century.
I've incorporated a Q&A page in my website that addresses your question as
it relates to Essentialism. It's worth quoting in this context because it
also compares the MoQ with "transcendental" philosophies (Pantheism and
Subjectivism, for example) that have a metaphysical approach to reality in
common with my own.
"Philosophies that have developed in the postmodern era are typically
oriented toward scientific materialism and have certain beliefs in common.
These include: the rejection of a primary source (considered
'supernatural'); a material basis for reality (considered 'scientific'); a
humanistic (collectivist) ideology that regards consciousness or 'intellect'
as a byproduct of material and cultural evolution; and a non-transcendental
(nihilistic) view of the universe. While Robert Pirsig's 'Metaphysics of
Quality' represents a novel departure from materialism, its moral system is
aphoristically defined as 'some things are better than others', its
metaphysics is theorized as a hierarchy of values that is incomprehensible
to all but its most ardent followers, and the philosophy offers no essential
meaning or purpose for man's existence." -- [Essentialist's Forum,
www.essentialism.net/FAQs.htm ]
A simpler answer may be that, because we cannot access the truth of ultimate
reality empirically, all metaphysics is necessarily hypothetical. Is that
"words about reality"? Yes, of course; but the words are used to express a
particular concept of reality. Now, Mr. Pirsig uses words quite eloquently
to articulate his concept. The problem is that his concept never extends
beyond (transcends) the experiential (i.e., empirical) world. His thesis
turns subjects and objects into a hypothetical hierarchy of Quality whose
levels and patterns represent the physical universe. Moreover, he avoids
definitions -- and metaphysics, too -- on the ground that "labels destroy
the concept," which effectively rules out a fundamental or primary Source
for the reality he is describing.
I maintain that no philosophy that identifies the Primary Source as a
relational attribute, such as Goodness, Beauty, Love, Energy, Being, Mind,
or Value, can be considered to transcend existence. Such hypotheses are not
metaphysics but poetic euphemisms for the differentiated world of
experience. A true metaphysics, in my opinion, is a cogent concept that
explains the origin and purpose of existence as it relates to ultimate
Reality.
I hope this helps to clarify the controversy.
Essentially speaking,
Ham
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/
