Hi all Of course like me Whitehead is a realist who opposes SOM and essentialism, for me Pirsig ought to open our thinking about experience into a more complete and consistent realist metaphysics such as the one Whitehead proposes, highly compatible with a non SOM form of science. So DMB where does Whitehead's realism go wrong, is not Whitehead an advance on Pirsig? -as he is more comprehensive, what issues with Whitehead would concern a DMB style MOQ anti-realist?
David M david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: >dmb says: >Horse asked me to take another look at this thread. It was dominated by David >Morey's quest for "speculative realism" and more or less centered around his >objection to the notion that static patterns are concepts. > > > >David Morey said (for example): >...the idea of using the notion of concepts to divide the dynamic and static >is a very bad move I think,.. [AND] ...sure all concepts are SQ, but I think >SQ clearly goes beyond concepts and language, to restrict SQ to being >exclusively concepts is an intellectual muddle, it looks too neat, it is too >neat, and it fails to reflect what we actually experience... > >dmb says: >As I see it, DM's quest for realism is the basis of his objection. Basically, >he wants the static patterns of the MOQ to be understood as the objective >reality of SOM. Inorganic patterns and biological patterns can't be concepts, >he figures, because he imagines these patterns in terms of material substance, >as pre-existing objective realities about which we have concepts. Our concepts >and words can correspond to these inorganic and biological patterns, he >figures, but the patterns themselves are not just concepts. And of course this >makes perfect sense - if you're in a subject-object metaphysics! > >The problem is that SOM is the problem while the MOQ is the solution. DM is >offering the disease as an alternative to the cure. No, thanks. > >You can sort of put SOM inside of the four systems, so that the first two >levels are "objective" and the top two levels are "subjective" but that only >helps with a comparison of the two metaphysics and little else. > >Maybe it would help to examine the kinds of words Pirsig is using in this >quote: > >"In this plain of understanding static patterns of value are divided into four >systems: inorganic patterns, biological patterns, social patterns and >intellectual patterns. They are exhaustive. That’s all there are. If you >construct an encyclopedia of four topics—Inorganic, Biological, Social and >Intellectual—nothing is left out. No 'thing,' that is. Only Dynamic Quality, >which cannot be described in any encyclopedia, is absent." (Lila Chapter 12) > >Please notice that experience as such is being left out. And that's reality. >What we have left is a "plain of understanding," "four systems," and "four >topics". These are all clues about the nature of static patterns, right? Just >as is the case with an encyclopedia, you'll find words and concepts about >plants, animals and stars, but you'll never find a "real" star or a "real" >animal within those pages. We see that Pirsig even put some scare quotes >around the term "thing". Why? Because static patterns are not "substances," >not the "things" of realism. They're concepts in an encyclopedia. > >The realism that DM wants is to be found in experience itself, on the other >side of the DQ/sq distinction and so it is left out of these books. > >Let me illustrate the picture with two Pirsigisms. 1) Pirsig says that >consciousness is a process in which DQ is constantly being defined and thereby >converted into static quality. Another way to say it would be consciousness is >a process wherein experience is constantly being conceptualized. 2) Pirsig >says we are hypnotized into believing that the static patterns are reality, >just like when we watch a movie. We laugh and cry, are thrilled and terrified, >even though we know that we're only watching shadows on the wall and even >though we know the action and motion is an illusion created by frozen images >shown at the rate of 60 frames per second. > >When you put these two ideas together, I think, it pretty well illustrates how >DQ and sq work in relation to each other. The fact that they are on two sides >of a distinction and are diametrically opposed terms does not mean that they >exist in separate realms. It's more like consciousness is a process wherein DQ >is being converted into sq at the rate of 60 beats per second. It's not like >we stay on the static side for eight hours and then go home to relax with some >pure DQ. No, it's a constant process wherein unconceptualized experience is >always being conceptualized. And more experience keeps coming in a constant >stream. And on and on it goes. > > > > > > > >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 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
