Agreed David, As I tried to say in starting the "Exist" thread - MoQist or SOMist - it doesn't help so say that no real world exists out there. It's the nature of that existence that is in question.
What a MoQist rejects is the objectivity of that existence - which is to question the very nature of existence as much as to simply answer "what" exists - which is a SOMist question in itself. (That said, I believe the feature applied to the continuum of potential existence and constraint, is a test of significance, of value. So there is an anthropocentric element to "which" patterns we give objective names to, and which languish as missed opportunities to be recognised as significant patterns. In this ontology its that spectrum of constrained and patterned possibility that exists, but exist it certainly does.) Ian On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 6:38 PM, David Morey <[email protected]>wrote: > Hi DMB and all > > Just to clarify whilst I am questioning the non-realism that is currently > being > attributed to the MOQ, both whether Pirsig is committed to non-realism, > and if so whether it is a good idea for the MOQ to take this path, > nonetheless I remain in agreement with the MOQ's rejection > of subject-object dualism, and I still agree that experience is > primary and I see realism as an good idea that we can arrive at > via reasoning about the gaps and aporias in what we direcftly > experience, a reasoning that begins with the experienced reality > of SQ. I cannot see any reason why such reasoning about the > existence of SQ/patterns when we are not directly experiencing > them is being excluded from MOQ, MOQ embraces reason and > its deductive powers I believe. Sure experience remains primary, > it is where we get the ontology of DQ and SQ from, and experience > is shown by Pirsig to give no good reasons for adopting SOM and > many reasons why it leads to confusions and so should be rejected, > but nonetheless we move from direct experience to look at all > the SQ we experience and reason about it, with cosmology > and evolution being two of our greatest products of reason > combined with empirical evidence. This leads is to realism > I am suggesting, and it is perfectly possible to adopt a form > of realism that rests on the MOQ ontology of SQ and DQ, > DMB claims this is a reduced and less radical version of > the MOQ, his claim that this leaves us with no MOQ or > simply SOM is preposterous, as rejection S-O metaphysics > remains highly radical, rejecting realism too may look even > more radical, problem is, I suggest is that such a rejection > of realism is simply wrong, it does not align with our experience > and with how we all live, accepting basic realism every day, > and every time we step forward without checking the floor is > still there, a reliable and familiar pattern that we all know. > MOQ needs to be based in experience and are established > and sensible human practices if it is to find a connection with > ordinary human beings leading real lives. A non-realist MOQ > takes on all the problems of idealism, anthropocentrism and > solipsism, and opens the MOQ to all the attacks that have > already removed these views from current thinking. SOM, > unlike realism, has many well known flaws and needs fixing, > realism is not a problem and does not need fixing. Sure SOM > uses realism to try to justify itself, and if you reject realism > you undermine SOM, but the reason SOM can get itself > supported is because it is basing itself in something that is > right, realism is right, it makes good sense of our experience. > It would be surprising if something as successful as SOM was > not mixed in with ideas that are right, the real need is to > sort out the good from the bad, a more difficult intellectual > task I know, but an important one, one that will help stop the > MOQ go down a path full of new errors or dead ends. Undermining > the substances of SOM is a big and important task on its own, > if DMB thinks this on its own is not a radical task he is very > much undermining the full complexity of what MOQ does, > why is he so attached to just the non-realist element that aligns > MOQ so much and so worryingly with the worst problem of > post-modernism? The prison house of non-realism is not > an easy position to argue against, it is perhaps an easy > position to build defences up from within, it is a prison > though, and it has a bad future I suspect, no future that is. > Realism is the more open and fruitful prospect, aligns > better with science and evolution, as I think we can see > from DMB's evasions about evolution. A realist MOQ is a > consistent, easy to understand and valuable alternative > to a non-realist MOQ, opponents that claim otherwise > seem to have strange and mixed motives. I am sure there > is a case for the disadvantages of a realist MOQ, and a > case for the advantages of a non-realist MOQ, I lokk > forward to hearing these if they are ever offered rather > than bogus claims about inconsistency, logic failures, > and various other smoke screens. Does experience > look like it has gaps that need explaining by realism? > Yes I say, if the non-realists says no, what do they > really believe, do patterns cease to exist when they > move out of our direct experience, does the pattern > we call the Sun cease to be every night? Did dinosaurs > never exist for themselves, only the idea we have of them? > You can put together a pretty consistent non-realist position, > unlike my opponents I will not dent that, but does non-realism > not lead you to defend pointless contortions that realism avoids. > DMB seems to think the MOQ's SQ is now all trapped inside > the cuttings of an encyclopaedia, the cosmos in its non-human > independence seems to have ceased to exist for him altogether, > this is a terrible shame for an MOQ that once showed such > ambition. Does science see itself as just writing encyclopaedias? > A non-realist MOQ just cannot offer us a coherent philosophy of > science that any scientist is ever likely to embrace. > > For the sake of a non-distorted MOQ I suggest you think again. > > All the best > Davifd M > > -----Original Message----- From: David Morey > Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 12:00 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [MD] SOM & the MOQ's four levels > > > Hi all > > What DMB says precisely reveals the disaster of rejecting not only SOM > dualism (a rejection which I support wholeheartedly) from the MOQ but also > going on to reject the most basic form of realism, the realism most human > culture adopts before SOM dualism even gets off the ground in human > culture. > See comments. > > 'Arlo is quite rightly identified the essential problem with SOM, a > pre-existing reality (to which our true concepts must correspond). ' > > -no, SOM is the disaster of dividing experience into 2 substances, subject > and objects, if you stick to MOQ and develop some good ideas about the > patterns we experience, it becomes quite obvious that we do not experience > everything all of the time, patterns come and go in our experience, if you > are going to maintain your motorcycle pretty hard to avoid some realism > about it, now SOM realism is very different to MOQ realism, but there is > just no need to ruin the MOQs power by making it a non-realism philosophy. > > 'And yet, as Ron points out, the MOQ's four levels are supposed to > represent > evolutionary stages of development wherein inorganic matter pre-exists the > human capacity for conceptualization by billions of years. This is the > basic > problem, right? It seems to be a contradiction.' > > - obviously you should not introduce matter into the MOQ, but yes MOQ does > not deny evolution and that organic patterns existed before human beings > came along to understand and experience them. > > 'Time and change are just basic concepts that emerge from Dynamic Quality, > not primary realities of their own and yet evolution is nothing but change > over time. ' > > - yes change over time, a time that preexisted us, non-dualistic > preexistence, it is a simple idea, I am sure you can get it if you stop > mis-associating it with its SOM version. > > 'So people wonder how to reconcile this or, much worse, they don't see any > need for reconciliation. In the latter case, there is no conflict because > Pirsig's levels of static patterns are just a new names for the same old > pre-existing "things" that SOM says they are.' > > you really need to stick to MOQ and say preexisting patterns, we have no > good ideas about what causes experienced patterns or what causes happen > when > we are not around, there are no objects in experience so SOM is nonsense, > but we do experience patterns, and these come and go, no reason to think > patterns cease to exist when we do not experience them, why are you leaping > to that assumption, your evidence? I think SQ and DQ are ontological and > exist independently of us and can explain non-human levels, why else talk > of > levels? > > > "Being a MOQer, in this case, is just a superficial change in lingo and not > a real change of mind or perspective. In this latter case, where the > rejection of SOM is little more than a banishment of the terms "subject" > and > "object", the Copernican revolution fizzled out, got short-circuited, or > otherwise failed to materialize. " > > -dropping SIM dualism I'd not superficial, do you think MOQ is just > non-realism, dualism is the key problem with SOM, does Pirsig go on about > pre-existence like you do, I think not. > > As I understand it, the MOQ's levels don't divide reality into evolutionary > stages so much as they divide what's in the encyclopedia. Pirsig says these > Arlo is quite rightly identified the essential problem with SOM, a > pre-existing reality (to which our true concepts must correspond). And yet, > as Ron points out, the MOQ's four levels are supposed to represent > evolutionary stages of development wherein inorganic matter pre-exists the > human capacity for conceptualization by billions of years. This is the > basic > problem, right? It seems to be a contradiction. > > Time and change are just basic concepts that emerge from Dynamic Quality, > not primary realities of their own and yet evolution is nothing but change > over time. So people wonder how to reconcile this or, much worse, they > don't > see any need for reconciliation. In the latter case, there is no conflict > because Pirsig's levels of static patterns are just a new names for the > same > old pre-existing "things" that SOM says they are. Being a MOQer, in this > case, is just a superficial change in lingo and not a real change of mind > or > perspective. In this latter case, where the rejection of SOM is little more > than a banishment of the terms "subject" and "object", the Copernican > revolution fizzled out, got short-circuited, or otherwise failed to > materialize. > > 'As I understand it, the MOQ's levels don't divide reality into > evolutionary > stages so much as they divide what's in the encyclopedia. Pirsig says these > levels include absolutely everything except DQ, which means it includes > absolutely everything except reality itself. That is quite a lot to leave > OUT of the encyclopedia, eh?' > > yes your understanding is a disaster, it makes MOQ aligned with > creationism, > how old does ZAMM say the world is? Introducing DQ and dropping SOM dualism > is very radical, dropping realism is a dumb step too far. > > 'It seems pretty clear to me that the MOQ's evolutionary levels are only > intended to organize our concepts and they should not be taken as a > description of reality as it is in itself. In the MOQ, that's is DQ and it > is not definable. You're not going to find the primary empirical reality in > the encyclopedia and the immediate flux of life is not to be found in the > dictionary, you know? ' > > here we go 'flux of life' quite right, there is life and it goes on in the > world beyond experience, you idealists should at leat be consistent and > referred only to the flux of experience, but you cannot help it you know > realism is right and endlessly refer to their existence and life of > patterns > beyond our finite experience, and clearly we do not experience everything, > there is life beyond, there are possibilities beyond what we experience > directly, our imaginations allow us to fill in the gaps in a non-SOM way > > > 'The evolutionary hierarchy of the MOQ does not divide the undivided > reality. It re-organized and re-cuts and re-imagines the ghosts, the > analogies, the knowable, definable, static patterns. ' > > you stick with ghosts if you want to! I will take the SQ I experience as > real, and when this SQ pops out of my experience I won't assume that means > it is some sort of ghost, that looks like a bad idea, real SQ does not need > me to exist, that is an odd idea of SOM idealism, I think realism is good, > in fact one of the reasons many people cannot drop materialism or SOM or > physicalism is that they worry that if they drop these things they lose > realism, a realist MOQ shows them they can drop these bad ideas without > losing the realism everyone really accepts, I mean do you check the ground > is still there every time you take a step forward! You need to start > agreeing your philosophy to your actions and experiences! > > > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/**listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-**moqtalk.org<http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org> > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/**pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.**org/<http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/> > http://moq.org/md/archives.**html <http://moq.org/md/archives.html> > 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
