This is my response to Bodvar, Struan, Rick, Platt, Glenn, Jonathan and Dan
on the issues of harmony and reality as they arose in Pirsig's recent resonse.
ON HARMONY:
Glenn and Rick's flack over the "harmony" response from Pirsig illustrates a
common misperception that RMP warns us of repeatedly. Namely, that
metaphysics isn't about reality, it is about maps of reality. In MOQ-speak,
it is about sq, not DQ.
The judge of a metaphysics is measured by the quality -- by the harmony -- of
the map. Is it in harmony with itself (is it consistent)? Is it in harmony
with experience? And is it in harmony with other fields of intellect
(science,sociology,math)? SOM isn't wrong, it is just inadequate and
inharmonious in many ways -- hence the platypi. I am sure the MOQ has
inadequacies as well. Quit looking for the absolute right or wrong
metaphysics or scientific theory, and instead look for those of value.
ON REALITY = QUALITY:
Back in August, we discussed whether morality = reality is an emotive "Pirsig
says so" statement, or a logical consistency within the metaphysics. Again
reverting to our traditional SOM viewpoint, we can evaluate this statement
ontologically or epistimologically (Pirsig intermixes both, and IMO would
disagree with any fundamental division between the two.)
Ontologically, DQ is value/morality/change and sq is the patterns formed from
this change. Subatomic reality is patterns of flux, forming inorganic
patterns which form living patterns etc.
Epistimologically, DQ is pure experience prior to our slicing and dicing it
into sq -- patterns of experience.
In both cases, the MOQ is consistent. Reality is explained via a map of
Dynamic Quality and the patterns derived from Dynamic Quality. The map works
well. (And in a way that does not revert to solipsism, as Jonathan would
surely agree)
By the way, both Bo and Struan are wrong regarding Pirsig's uniqueness of
identifying and addressing the inadequacies of SOM . In its most recent
guise, Struan refers to this as "shooting platypuses that don't exist." And
Bo says, "nobody has said anything faintly resembling Pirsig."
Actually, philosophers, scientists and sociologists have been commenting on
the inadequacies and platypi of conventional Cartesian/Newtonian/Classical
Western thinking throughout the past 100 years or more. James, Whitehead,
Bohr, Schroedinger and Blackmore to name just a few. Struan's better
'criticism' of the MOQ is not the SOM Strawman, it is that the MOQ is not as
original as some make it out to be. Certainly this is an odd form of
criticism though, as it again points to the HARMONY with current intellectual
patterns. And I agree with Bo that what differs between Pirsig and others is
the shear HARMONIOUS breadth of the metaphysics.
Roger
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
