On Mar 29, 2010, at 8:55 AM, [email protected] wrote: > Marsha, Andre (who will not see this) All. > > March 28. you said to Andre > >> I certainly will miss your Buddhist wisdom. But I cannot help but wonder >> about the expression of your "having to defend Pirsig against himself" , >> especially when RMP talks in ZMM of explanations being both true and >> false, and in LILA of more than one set of truths. > > After his "conversion" to orthodoxy Andre gave the impression of > defending Pirsig against my heresy, but had he said "having to defend > the MOQ against Pirsig" he would be right because Pirsig can be > ambiguous to say the least. Let's have a look at these quotes. > >> "Any philosophic explanation of Quality is going to be both false and >> true precisely because it is a philosophic explanation. The process of >> philosophic explanation is an analytic process, a process of breaking >> something down into subjects and predicates. What I mean (and >> everybody else means) by the word quality cannot be broken down into >> subjects and predicates. This is not because Quality is so mysterious >> but because Quality is so simple, immediate and direct." (ZMM, Chapter >> 20) > > SOM and "philosophy" are identical. The old Greek philosophers who > started the search for eternal principles also started the search for > Truth, or (as it happened) to try to distinguish the real article from > what just appeared as true (these two quests are indistinguishable). > Thus Pirsig is correct that "philosophical explanations" will be both true > and false i.e. never escape SOM because SOM IS the "true/false" > aggregate. But Pirsig has created a metaphysical explanation that > transcends SOM and this (DQ/SQ) metaphysics relegates SOM the > role of its own highest yet static level. And now he can't continue the > "MOQ-just-another-intellectual ..." sophistry. Now it's for real.
You know I agree with you on the fourth Intellectual Level reflecting a reality formed through the SOM prism. I think this quote explains the contradiction between the MoQ representing a Reality equal to Quality (DQ/sq), and RMP's definitions, explanations and examples of the MoQ which turns it into "an analytic process, a process of breaking something down into subjects and predicates." If one accepts the MoQ, then Reality has gone from being subjects and objects -to- Reality being Quality(Dynamic/static,) from a metaphysics based on subjects/objects to a metaphysics based quality, from a dualism to a monism, from SOM to MoQ. > >> "...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. > > Well, this is wrong, here he gives intellect - the level - the role as the > judge of what is GOOD *) but no static level knows the overall view, > they all promote their own limited static good, and we know, intellect's > immune system struck Phaedrus down, let him go through the > treatment and spat him out as cured. > > *) here he means "intelligence" I do not see problem with this quote; it seems obvious enough to me a dismissal of the search for Absolute Truth. I agree with you that there is a difference between Intellectual static patterns of value and intelligence. I understand 'intelligence' as the skillful use of whatever patterns (organic, biological, social & intellectual) a given situation requires, or possibly to use no patterns if nothing is required. > >> 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. > > Yes, that's what the MOQ does, but it does not merely examine > intellectual patterns, but all static levels and their patterns. And from its > meta-view there aren't really good and bad patterns inside a level, > rather simple and complex ones. I think this agree with my above definition of intelligence. > >> 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. >> (LILA, Chapter 8) > > "More intellectual quality"? Hmmmm. Take for instance Greek Physics > versus Newton's, the former were full of strange notions that could not > explain much except create paradoxes, all of which Newtonian Physics > dissolved, and yet the former were a necessary first baby grovel. I > would have used simple vs complex. Even between complex and complex there could be a best for the occasion; the best for a particular occasion, and for a 'generality' a remembrance that in all probability a better solution will eventually come along. > >> Maybe I'm fortunate to have painting to totally distract me when I get >> feeling stuck. For instance, I have started painting, from an old etched >> print, a gypsy woman seriously playing a guitar. It is an impossible >> task, I love to paint. - What do you love to do? > > Agree, although (as Platt said the) the most rewarding phase is to > contemplate the empty canvas - countless great paintings is hidden on > it, only one can get stuck in manifesting one of them. Agree even more > on MD and painting as a good combination, but that may go for all jobs > >> I've often wanted to ask people, how does the MoQ make their lives better? >> Abstract thinking about metaphysical subject matter is wonderful, but has >> it changed your life? > > Yes definitely, but only after the SOL interpretation dawned on me. For me the important realization was the nature of patterns. And the MoQ became less confusing when I realized the Intellectual Level was, most certainly, a subject-object level. This second realization was not a result of your arguments directly. It struck me like a 2x4 in the middle of disagreeing with you. But you were correct! The fourth level is a formalized subject/object level. Marsha ___ 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/md/archives.html
