dmb, I did not present these two passages as a RMP contradiction. I presented the October 2005 quote as an updated view that RMP does not want the MoQ to fall within any philosophic tradition. Why? Because: 1.) "The Metaphysics of Quality's central idea that the world is nothing but value is not part of any philosophic tradition that I know of. " 2.) "I have proposed it [Quality] because it seems to me that when you look into it carefully it makes more sense than all the other things the world is supposed to be composed of." 3.) One particular strength lies in its [Quality] applicability to quantum physics, where substance has been dismissed but nothing except arcane mathematical formulae has really replaced it." Quantum Physics, Consciousness and Quantum Consciousness are where the dynamic thinking is taking place, and on a global level, not what dmb says-charlene says-james says.
Marsha On Nov 7, 2011, at 9:02 PM, david buchanan wrote: > > DMB said to Matt: > ...I can see how these two passages might seem contradictory to those who > haven't read Pirsig's books, to those who don't know this story. But you and > Marsha should clearly see that this is an imaginary problem. > > Matt replied: > Perhaps, then, you didn't read what I said. Perhaps, though, you don't know > what "misleading" means. Perhaps, again, I have a greater sensitivity to, > and desire to be sensitive to, the range of inferential pathways. > > dmb says: > Are you now claiming that you did not (or do not) see these two passages as > contradictory? I thought it was pretty clear that you were taking Marsha's > claim seriously, mostly because you said it ought to be taken seriously. > > "What you've presented are two conflicting passages from Pirsig," you said to > Marsha. And then you went to explain, "How I [Matt] deal with the conflict: I > [Matt} don't take his statement in 2005 seriously." Your "strategy" for > dealing with this conflict, you said to her, "is to largely explain away the > passage, to ignore it in a sense". You can sensitively take this up any > inferential path you like. It still validates an imaginary conflict and it's > downright insulting to Pirsig. You often act like Pirsig's thought would be > improved by ignoring or dismissing some part of it. That is way too > presumptuous and just plain offensive. And your denial only insults me. I > know what you said. If you don't want to stand by it, then fine. But don't > pretend you weren't playing along with Marsha's imaginary contradiction. > "Seriously" was your word for how it ought to be taken. And if you can't or > won't stand it, then just don't type it up and post it. Write it on little > piece of paper, i f > you must. But then burn it and bury the ashes. > > > > > > > "The MOQ is a continuation of the mainstream of twentieth century American > philosophy, It is a form of pragmatism, of instrumentalism, which says the > test of the true is the good. It adds that this good is not a social code or > some intellectualized Hegelian Absolute. It is direct everyday experience." > (Lila 366) > > "The Metaphysics of Quality is not intended to be within any philosophic > tradition, although obviously it was not written in a vacuum. ... The > Metaphysics of Quality's central idea that the world is nothing but value is > not part of any philosophic tradition that I know of. I have proposed it > because it seems to me that when you look into it carefully it makes more > sense than all the other things the world is supposed to be composed of. One > particular strength lies in its applicability to quantum physics, where > substance has been dismissed but nothing except arcane mathematical formulae > has really replaced it." (RMP, 'A Brief Summary of the MOQ') > ___ 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
