Greetings, Platt --
Hi Mark, All:
Dynamic Quality isn't concept free. Once you name something,
it becomes a concept. But it's a concept like "ineffable" is a concept
-- pointing to something that cannot be defined. And that leaves
intellect impotent. Intellect can only deal with defined terms. Pirsig
admitted as much. But, he said go ahead anyway: "Getting drunk
and picking up bar-ladies and writing metaphysics is a part of life."
(Lila, 5) So, yes. Even though we can't think about DQ, go ahead
and think about it - another paradox illustrating critical thinking's
feet of clay.
I realize that you respect Pirsig's philosophy and feel obliged to follow
his precepts to the letter. However, Pirsig called his thesis the
"Metaphysics of Quality", and a metaphysical exposition should properly
include both an epistemology (to explain how we know) and an ontology (to
explain what we experience). Without theoretical support for these
components, a philosophy is merely a euphemistic paradigm or, as some regard
the MoQ, an anological perspective of reality. One might as well say, as
Marsha often has, "Everything is analogy". I don't know about you, Platt,
but that's not my idea of a metaphysical concept.
Also, I have to disagree that "once you name something, it becomes a
concept." If I name the "quadratic equation" to you, does it become a
concept? Is "antidisestablishmentarianism" a concept? Is even the simple
noun "Quality" a concept?
In a previous post to Mark, I distinguished "concept" from "conception" in
this fashion:
A "concept" must be defined in words in order to be conveyed to others.
(That's why metaphysics is "nothing but definitions," as Prisig
complained.)
But a "conception" is one's conceptual understanding, whether it is set in
words or equations, analogized, or merely described. This, I submit, is
what
we are after. The rest is typically philosophology, opinion, polemics, or
anecdotal "what I read last night" commentary.
If we intend to expand our understanding of philosophy and metaphysics, it
seems to me we need to do it conceptually, rather than just throwing words
around as so much poetic metaphor. Even a conception that seems
indefinable can be communicated as a principle or functionally described.
I'm reminded once again of Cusa's First Principle: the 'not-other'. It's
only the hyphenated conjunction of two simple words, but it expresses his
conception that the primary source (however you choose to name it) is an
undifferentiated whole. Meister Eckhart's concept of "total IS-ness" and
the 'ex nihilo' principle also effectively convey related concepts.
More typically, a metaphysical conception requires a number of postulates,
the author's specially defined terms, and a logical rational to support the
overall concept as a cogent theory. I side with Mark on this issue.
Ridiculing the critical thinking that is necessary for metaphysical
exposition is a lame excuse for intellectual oversight, in my opinion.
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/md/archives.html
