Ron stated July 3rd 2012:
Ant continued:
I think if the MOQ had started (metaphysically) as some sort of dualist
"Quality world/non-Quality world" then it would have just returned us to a
version of the old SOM mind-matter problem that is laid out in LILA. For
example, how would these two realms interact with each other? Also, if you
value having a value-free realm, won't you be contradicting yourself?!
On a related note, for a good understanding of how Quality exists as two basic
types (the Dynamic and static), I would recommend that you read Paul Turner's
"Notes on the Tetralemma"
Ron commented:
Once the idea of "one" is used as a primary explanitory factor it immediately
introduces "not one"
which the teralemma addresses in all it's variations of explanation and what it
does not adequately
explain is the beautiful and the Good. If we combine them as the Platonists
did, and equivocate
unity with the Good and the true and the many with plural and the false or
illusonary, we have the
truth/appearence in the form of the Dynamic/Static explanation.
Ant McWatt comments:
Ron,
I'm not sure that you can equate the Good with the Beautiful and True in this
way within the MOQ unless the Truth is thought of in a poetic way (with a
capital "T" - in the sense where you have churches advertising "Jesus is the
Truth") as another word for DQ rather than some type of static intellectual
pattern.
It also appears that you are mixing-up two explanations that are using two
distinct types of logic (i.e. the Tetralemma and Aristolean "excluded middle"
logic). I'm not saying that they can't be combined in this way but (if you
look at Paul Turner's paper on the Tetralemma at robertpirsig.org), the static
patterns aren't considered illusory; they just don't exist as independent
essences from Dynamic Quality.
Ron continued:
That is why I think we must be careful with what we mean when we say that
"Quality is one".
Ant McWatt comments:
Ron, I guess it depends on the audience. For example, I think if Pirsig had
used the Tetralemma in LILA, it would have lost some of the ZMM audience
interested in a more general chautauqua. However, now that the ideas in LILA
have had 21 years to become latched; then I see no reason - philosophically -
for why more sophisticated understandings of how the MOQ can be understood as a
monism (for example, using the Tetralemma) can be introduced.
Ron continued:
We can Pragmatically avoid a lot of false philosophical problems if we avoid
associating Quality with unity. Willie James had some good reasons why not to
also.
Ant McWatt asks:
I'd be interested in hearing some of these reasons.
Best wishes,
Ant
.
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
