ELEPHANT TO JUSTIN (spork):
I guess the answer to your question is that if math is our own modeling, then
we are modelling it to some purpose, and so the motivation has to be a
reality here. The same is true of a modelling of the metaphysics of Quality.
Since Quality, by definition, is our goal in every activity, it is in the
case of MOQ both the motivation and the thing we are motivated to model. So,
O.K., this looks a little like the infamous Ontological Proof for the
existence of God: Quality is the perfect object of all our desires, therefore
it cannot but exist (supposing perfection involves existence). There are a
number of things wrong with the ontological argument in so far as it is
applied to God (Struan might like to fill in all the tedious details), mainly
connected with the fact that the perfection of objects is a matter of the
object's attributes, and existence isn't an attribute. However, when we
apply the Ontological Proof to The Good, or Quality, which is itself
generally conceived of as an attribute rather than an object, these points
against the ontological proof do not apply. If these circuitous manouvers
around the Ontological Proof interest you, check out Iris Murdoch:
Metaphysics as a guide to morals ISBN 0140172327, CHAPTER 13. That thing you
most trully desire must exist - Murdoch makes a case for this not being self
indulgent fantasy, since good hard thinking about what it is you most trully
desire leads to contemplation of a quite austere reality of satisfaction, the
stuff which nirvana is made of. That help at all?
BTW:
I guess I would myself treat math as instrumental, but instrumental in a
particularly rigid and compelling way... There are other 'maths', yet, at
the same time, all 'maths' represent the one same 'maths', if you see what I
mean: this being why Plato thought geometry such a good training: one is
modelling, but one cannot model in an idle or self indulgent way: one will be
quickly found out.
-Pzeph
JUSTIN WROTE:
I got this problem from reading about interpretations
of mathematics. It's called Conceptualism, and I think
it poses a serious problem to the MOQ. Any help here
or answers would be appreciated. Thanks.
-As far as mathematics, Conceptualism states that we
invent math, not discover it- it is our own modelling
of reality in a way that we can intellectually
understand. Math seems to fit nature so well (as per a
Neo-Platonist claim) because we have designed it to do
so.
The same could be said of Quality. The idea of Quality
can seem like it works to us now simply because Pirsig
has designed the MOQ to work based off reality. With
all our analogues we have built up to reality, how can
we ever know we are truly seeing Quality?
The problem, therefore, is the possibility that
Quality does not exist in and of itself, but only as a
model for our experiences. Every person will have
their own definition of Quality, even w/out the
analogues, because it is their own modelling of what
they perceive they see because Pirsig has said it's
out there.
Again, thanks for any answers.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
http://shopping.yahoo.com/
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
----------------------- Headers --------------------------------
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
