[MD] Metaphysics

[Steven Peterson]

Hi Bo,

Bo:
> Steve:
>> As you can see from the above (and Bo should well note), Pirsig's use
>> of the term metaphysics is different from Bo's. For Bo, a metaphysics
>> is something like a worldview. When he puts the point more strongly Bo
>> even says that metaphysics is reality .......
>
Bo:
> Yes, you bet, metaphysics in the the true MOQ  sense is reality, that's
> the very point!


Steve:
Perhaps it is a language barrier. You use the term "metaphysics" in
such an idiosyncratic way it is hard to tell what you are saying half
the time, but it is clear that you don't mean the same thing that
Pirsig means by the term. You keep insisting that though your use of
the term differs from Pirsig's that yours is the "true MOQ sense." I
don't see how this could be considerring that the term "metaphyisics
of Quality" was coined by Pirsig as a place holder for the philosophy
of Robert M Pirsig.

Where you say that metaphysics is reality, Pirsig says that Quality is
reality. He says that a metaphysics of Quality is a logical absurdity,
so I think we need to take it all with a dose of irony.


Pirsig:
"Quality is indivisible, undefinable and unknowable in the sense that there
is a knower and a known, but a metaphysics can be none of these things.  A
metaphysics must be divisible, definable and knowable, or there isn't any
metaphysics.  Since a metaphysics is essentially a kind of dialectical
definition and since Quality is essentially outside definition, this means
that a "Metaphysics of Quality" is essentially a contradiction in terms, a
logical absurdity."



Bo:
> For you Steve academical philosophy may just be a part of "thinking"
> but for the MOQ (that I read from other parts of Pirsigs work)
> philosophic studying of subjective ideas along with the scientific
> studying of objective facts IS the intellectual level as it appears for us
> today, but had its origin in Aristotle who laid down the foundation for
> SOM.

Steve:
But Pirsig himself has told you that you have read him wrong in
thinking that that is what he is saying, so whatever you've caught
glimmers of in "other parts of Pirsig's work" was nothing that Pirsig
intended.

I really think that you need to drop the idea that there is some true
MOQ "out there" somewhere that Pirsig is reflecting in his words when
you agree with him and betraying when you disagree with him. The MOQ
is Pirsig's philosophy. You have you own philosophy that is something
quite diferent from the MOQ.

Best,
Steve