Hi Ham
'=' in the sense that Quality = Reality is saying that they are the same
thing.
If I refer to Venus, the Morning Star or the Evening Star by saying
Venus = Morning Star = Evening Star, I'm not saying there is an
equivalence, I'm saying that they are exactly identical. The only
difference is the form of the linguistic label. There is no difference
in their value.
Horse
On 08/12/2010 06:47, Ham Priday wrote:
Hi Horse --
On Sunday 12/5/10, 2:06 PM, you said to Marsha:
The MoQ is a metaphysics and is definable. Quality is not definable.
So if Reality = Quality
then Reality is not definable either. So to say that MoQ = Reality
means that there is a
huge contradiction - i.e. it's a mistake.
So MoQ cannot be Reality.
I agree that the name of an intellectual pursuit is not the same
identity as the body of knowledge it refers to, just as the title of a
novel is not the same as the story recounted in the book. However,
your response to Marsha leaves Pirsig's "equivalency postulate"
hanging in limbo. Not to exacerbate this issue, but by way of
clarifying it, let me paraphrase your argument with a similar one
drawn from the objective sciences.
Cosmology is a science which defines Reality as the Cosmos. The MoQ is
a metaphysics which equates Reality to Quality. So if Reality =
Quality, does it also equal the Cosmos? Or are the cosmologists mistaken?
Equivalence means: 1) equal or interchangeable in value, quantity,
significance, etc.; 2) having the same or a similar effect or meaning.
By these criteria, I submit that equating something called X with
something called Y is "defining" it.
Two questions:
If you do not accept equivalency as definitive, by what logic does Mr.
Prsig equate two indefinable things?
And, if metaphysics is definable, how can the equation Reality =
Quality be a metaphysical postulate?
The truth of the matter is that what is not experiencable to human
beings is indefinable. Therefore, attempts to define ultimate Reality
as a qualitative abstraction, such as Being, Consciousness, Energy,
Value, or Goodness are no more valid than equating it to a known
physical entity. Nicholas of Cusa in the 15th century came up with the
principle of the 'Not-other', which is arguably the best working
definition possible for metaphysical reality.
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
--
"Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production deadlines
or dates by which bills must be paid."
— Frank Zappa
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
