Magnus --
[Ham]:
Why isn't 'Being and Becoming' a valid interpretation
of experiential reality? It certainly represents the existentialist
position of Heidegger and Sartre. Moreover, it also takes
"nothingness" into account, as "becoming" infers coming into
existence (from nothing).
[Magnus]:
This might be a first, but I agree with you on that Ham.
The MoQ isn't alone on this, it's mostly common sense
if you think about it. And I can imagine that this is the case
for many other areas of the MoQ. And this is not a bad
thing, it probably just makes it easier for outsiders to understand it.
For example, in my essay "The levels undressed", I argue
that the MoQ levels can be mapped to different scientific
fields, like physics, chemistry, biology, etc. That's a strength! Then it
can use the level ladder to connect the dots *between*
those, otherwise very separate, fields of research. I mean, is it really
feasible that mankind have separated those
scientific fields of research for so long (ok, I guess it really
isn't *that* long, but anyway), without good reason? Why would everybody
agree that physics, chemistry and
biology are different, if they metaphysically aren't?
Because they ARE different fields of investigation, established for
different objectives. The physicist is looking for basic principles of
dynamic interaction--the "mechanics" of the universe, so to speak. The
biologist studies life forms to learn the properties of organisms that lead
to evolutionary change and complexity. Since the time of the alchemists,
the chemist has been interested in categorizing the elements and their
behavior in reactiive processes such as compounding, metallurgy, and
polymerization. Of course there are cross-overs, as in biophysics,
genetics, geology, archeology, anthropology, etc., so that man's exploration
of nature need never be segregated strictly by "kinds of substances"
investigated .
I don't view these differences as "metaphysical", however. Nor, in my
opinion, are the four levels posited by Mr. Pirsig anything but an arbitrary
classification of observed phenomena. According to the paradigm, anything
that involves knowledge, thought or feeling is assigned to the "social
level", while inanimate and animate phenomena are attributed to the
"inorganic" or "biological" level, respectively. (The so-called
"intellectual level" remains in limbo, depending on whether one regards
reasoning as a "subjective" or a "social" function.
Just what is "metaphysical" about such a classification, and how is it a
more "enlightened" worldview than the subject/object duality which it was
designed to replace?
Essentially curious,
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
