Ant,
Ant
McWatt comments: Tukkaa, I’ve read your
letter that you posted at MOQ Discuss on March 27th and, amongst all
the obscure Ptolemaic thinking, can’t see where you’ve unified the two distinct
metaphysical frameworks found in ZMM and LILA.
Tuukka:
What do you mean by Ptolemaic? Obsolete?
This is the MOQ in ZAMM: http://moq.fi/ZAMM-1.png
Here I split romantic quality into two patterns:
http://moq.fi/ZAMM-add-1.png
This is the MOQ in LILA. It is only about objective quality:
http://moq.fi/LILA-1.png
Here is my theory SOQ: http://moq.fi/RP-1.png
Subjective quality (the blue box), which was present in ZAMM, is absent
in LILA. Pirsig seems to have missed, that subjective value patterns
require subjective descriptions, and objective value patterns require
objective description. RMP says in SODV, that the social pattern would
be subjective, but all descriptions of the social pattern, that he
presents in LILA, are objective. What is subjective in that kind of
social quality? Same goes for intellectual quality.
Ant:
Pirsig
cites the example of an American Indian going out on a Vision Quest in Chapter
9 of LILA as being outside classic and romantic aspects of the universe. So,
firstly, I am wondering how you’d address
this issue?
Tuukka:
What is the issue, exactly? In SOQ, the classical-romantic -split is
agreed to be smaller in scope than the Dynamic-static -split. Being
outside the classic-romantic -split is possible within the context of
LILA's MOQ. It's not possible in ZAMM's MOQ, because that theory does
not include Dynamic Quality, and therefore has a smaller scope.
Because the SOQ includes both ZAMM's MOQ and LILA's MOQ, it can explain
the behavior of the American Indian as well as LILA's MOQ can. The
conceptual scope of SOQ is the same as the scope of LILA, but it has
more content which is more clearly expressed. In SOQ, both classical and
romantic quality are forms of static quality. There is nothing in ZAMM,
to my knowledge, that would not permit this.
Ant:
Secondly, you seem to missing a few logical steps in that letter. For instance, what does
"nonrelativizably" mean in that phrase "nonrelativizably used predicate"? I only ask as
part of F.S.C. Northrop's problem in being understood in the Academy (let alone by the wider public) is that
his metaphysical structures became (relatively) very intricate, large and unwieldy. For instance, check out
his text "The Logic of the Science and Humanities" and his diagrams of all these concepts by
inspection, intuition, postulation, etc. It's not for the faint hearted!
Tuukka:
I do. I had to simplify the letter a bit. Here is a definition of
"nonrelativizably used predicate" that you were asking for:
http://www.todellisuudenomistaja.net/suhteutuvuus-ja-sen-seurauksia/#comment-802
The definition is not yet completely translated, but if you understand
the kind of language used in the text, you will get an idea of what it's
about.
Best wishes
Tuukka
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
