> Bo to Case [Krimel]: > I didn't catch your point, but I ask you to employ > your intelligence on the issue at hand which is purely logical not > particularly MOQish. Namely if Pirsig's Quality/MOQ meta- > metaphysics that Steve wields is logically valid? That there is a > QUALITY other than the DQ of the MOQ and independent of it? For > instance if there comes a "metaphysics" that rejects the MOQ it is still > a "MOQ"?
[Krimel] It is a bit difficult untangling your hyphens to revel what is being contrasted above but sure, there is QUALITY other than DQ. It's called SQ. I don't think that a metaphysics that overturned the MoQ would be the MoQ. But I do think it would be "a" metaphysic. Taxonomically the MoQ is a metaphysic, SOM is too, so are eastern metaphysics and the Discordian Revelation. Steve: Let's not confuse "THE MOQ" (Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality) with "AN moQ" (some other metaphysics of Quality). Not only is some hypothetical future metaphysics that rejects Pirsig's MOQ still potentially a metaphysics of Quality, but SOM is already a metaphysics of quality according to Pirsig in Lila: "There already is a metaphysics of quality. A subject-object metaphysics is in fact a metaphysics in which the first division of Quality-the first slice of undivided experience-is into subjects and objects." [Krimel] I when I think about a three way I usually think in terms of a different gender and closer spatial proximity but we could make this work. I don't think there is a "THE MOQ" of even a "Pirsig's MoQ". First because of the way Pirsig words things. The MoQ says... The MoQ asserts that... Sometimes the way he phrases it, it is possible that even he doesn't necessarily agree with it. Second, Roland Barthes made a major stir in continental philosophy some years back with a paper that proclaimed, in its title, "The Death of the Author." He asserts that once a text has been written the author has no exclusive claim on it. It exists on its own right, on its own terms and every reader's interpretation of the work has equal standing with the author's. It was a radical claim but I think Pirsig offers a good case in point. In Lila he deviates a bit from ZMM and his discourse on the meaning of ZMM is in many respects the discourse of a person different from than the person who wrote it. This is a point Bo might exploit in promoting his SOL and one I have not hesitated to use in expressing disagreement with Pirsig. Thirdly, in terms of asserting whatever "authority" an author might have over the ideas he has expressed, Pirsig has done an astonishingly piss poor job of expanding, expounding and clarifying his meaning. > Bo: > For instance Quantum Theory predicts a pretty weird world (the > "Schrodinger Cat" f.ex) but the physicists deny any "objective" > Newtonian - even Einsteinian - reality" outside Quantum Theory (QT). > Now, QT is only necessary for sub.atomic events, ordinary physics > works fine otherwise. I compare this with the MOQ which is only > needed for the ultimate view. For ordinary purposes its intellectual > level - SOM - works fine, but Steve insists on a som-like "objective" > Quality that the MOQ is just one possible explanation of.This is deeply > wrong, MOQ's Quality Reality only exists within the MOQ. [Krimel] First I don't know that quantum theorists deny any kind of reality outside their theory. If so why do some of them continue to assert that they are on a quest for the Theory of Everything? I think most of them are well aware that their theory is incomplete. I agree with Steve, the MOQ IS just one possible explanation. It is "A" metaphysics not "THE" metaphysics, just as Newton presented "A" physics, Einstein presented "A" physics and Bohr and Co. present "A" physics. None of them talk about "THE" physics. Bohr flatly stated something to the effect that physics is no longer about reality but what we can say about reality. Steve: There is no such thing as "objective" Quality in the MOQ other than as inorganic and biological patterns of value. Quality precedes this objective-subjective metaohsyical distinction you mention. Please explain how I am supporting an SOM-like version of the MOQ when pretty much all I ever need to do in response to your claims is to quote Pirsig. All your disagreements are with him rather than me. [Krimel] I'll let Bo handle that as I don't think I have a dog in that fight. Left over Bo stuff: [Bo] All right I gladly accept your greater knowledge here, but you misunderstand, the human biology is an advanced organism with its big - neocortex - brain. The Q-biological LEVEL includes everything from plants, bacteria, amoebas to mammals, and the lower strata of this level are pretty "hard-wired", if wired at all (no neural system). [Krimel] Biologically speaking there is not discontinuity in the evolution of nervous systems. Nervous systems evolve in response to selection pressure from the environment. The human response to these selection pressures has been bigger brains. Those brains allow humans a greater range of responses and the ability to thrive in more diverse environments than many other species. So what? [Bo] I do NOT think biology runs any employment service, but I very much know that the lower level becomes employed by the upper, thus the biological (in its nature) computer has in turn been (still is )employed by the social and intellectual levels in turn,. [Krimel] If you don't think that, then why do you continue to talk like that even in your denial? What kind of job can lower level get with the upper level? If there is no employment service does the lower level have to apply in person? If the biological computer has been and still is "employed by the social and intellectual levels in turn" how did they get the job? Can they live comfortably on their salaries? How are they paid? What are the benefits? Can they only be employed by the intellectual level after some period in the service of the social level? How much vacation time do they get? Getting clear answers is largely a matter of asking clear questions. Asking meaningless questions tends to result in meaningless answers. I fear that is a major part of the difficulty you have here. 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/
