Hi Joe --
Appreciate your response. However, you seem to think that the only issues
I'm addressing are subject/object duality and evolution, despite the fact
that I did not use either of those terms in the 12 tenets presented.
A metaphysics is a system of logic. Pirsig has a new insight into logic.
SOM suggested that logic had to include an acceptance of a division
in existence between subjective existence and objective existence. This is
very clumsy as subjective existence is unverifable by an outside party and
any decision following a dialog between people wishing to communicate is
guesswork. In the logic of mathematics there is no S only O.
I don't think Pirig's Quality thesis is a "new insight into logic", or that
logic can be altered by what amounts to poetic license. That Pirsig
regarded S/O duality as "clumsy" doesn't justify its dismissal. That fact
that a subject cannot be objectively verified or numerically quantified are
illogical reasons for rejecting subjectivity. The empirical evidence simply
indicates that selfness is not objective.
In mathematics, evolution is denied unless you accept a dual basis for
logic: DQ/SQ. When 1 is defined logic is impeccable. When 1 is undefned,
logic looks to evolution for indefineable
individuation. Mathematics is simply another tool.
Mathematics is a tool for analyzing a relational system (existential
reality). It has no
utility in defining metaphysical reality.
DQ/SQ, Persig declares DQ is not unverifiable by another,
it is simply undefined. Sameness in experience on a mataphysical
level is a common thread between people. The metaphysical argument does
not depend on guesswork about
existence SOM, but rather a clarification of experience, MOQ.
How can experience be "clarified" if we don't know what its essence is? Why
isn't a multi-level paradigm of existence based on Quality anything other
than "'guesswork" on the part of an auther?
To verify an individuals' experience in MOQ, everyone has to
go through the same process of clarifying what is undefined in their
experience. Pirsig shifted the burden from verifying logic from a
"he says she says" situation to an agreement about levels in existence,
evolution
Logic is not based on "he says, she says" but on the empirical order of a
relational system. Agreeing on an arbitrary set of levels is "he says, they
repeat", which is no more logical than a political rally.
In your FUNDAMENTAL TENETS OF ESSENTIALISM
you have to rely on logic for veracity with no rules extablished. Opinion
rules. Who can doubt your experience?
That's what I submitted, Joe -- my metaphysical tenets. I'm asking for your
opinion on each of them. This is my approach to polling the MoQ community.
My hope for logic follows DQ/SQ in evolution!
This is meaningless to me. It sounds as if you believe logic will suddenly
change and fulfill your hope.
(Next challenger, please.)
--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/md/archives.html
