Hi Horse [Tim mentioned] --
'=' 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.
Pirsig appears to equate everything that one could call "subjective". Thus,
his multi-equivalency equation (Experience = Quality = Reality = Morality)
postulates a subjectivist worldview. While that effectively eliminates
objects as "real", I do not see how it eliminates the subjects who are aware
of these precepts or aesthetic contingencies. In my opinion, reducing the
subjective self to a pattern (patterns?) of Quality does not make the
subject "less real" than the precepts it recognizes.
This gives me an opportunity to confirm a statement I made to Tim. Did
Pirsig not also equate Quality to Value as the equivalency: Value = Quality?
As this is important to me, I'd appreciate learning the source for this
equation. (We believe it may be included in the SODV paper.)
In conceding to me that Pirsig had indeed equated Quality to Value, Tim
added ...
and even though he did equate quality and value (he moreso
equated quality and morality), Quality was the source of quality.
In your opinion, is there any difference between Pirsig's 'Quality' (with
the initial cap) and 'quality' (lower case)? If there is, I must have
missed something in my interpretation of the Quality thesis.
Thanks, Horse.
Ham
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
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
