[MD] Metaphysics

[Steven Peterson]

Hi Andre,

On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 5:15 AM, Andre Broersen <andrebroersen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Bodvar to virtually all of us:
>
> Yes, you bet, metaphysics in the the true MOQ  sense is reality, that's
> the very point!

Steve:
Where do you find this "true MOQ sense" of the word metaphysics?
Everything that Pirsig writes on the subject takes a particular
metaphysics to be one possible intellectual construction among an
infinite possibility for descriptions of Quality.

In what sense is your idea of the "true MOQ sense" the true MOQ sense
of what the "true MOQ" says? I can't tell what you could mean by this
phrase and what you could mean by "the MOQ" if MOQ is not synonymous
with the philosophy of Robert M Pirsig as outlined in Lila and ZAMM.


Andre:
> Hello Bodvar and All:
> When I read this, something dawned on me but couldn’t give it
> expression until I lay, quietly on my electric blanket (it is fucking
> freezing here!).
> Then it came to me...the passage in ZMM (I think) where Phaedrus has a
> conversation with a priest and they are talking about the liturgy, the
> most sacred part: when the wine changes into blood, and the bread
> changes into the body of Christ. Phaedrus asks along the lines of;
> (sorry I do not have a copy of ZMM with me) yes, but this is
> symbolically..yeS??. No! says the priest, this is real. At that
> moment, the wine and bread change into the actual blood and body of
> Jesus Christ!
> Christians all over the world actually and factually believe that this
> is indeed the case. And, further more, the Bible is of course seen,
> not as a book full of stories ( if I may take the liberty, as a book
> full of fingers pointing to the moon!!) but as the actual word of God.
>
> Bodvar ‘ forced’ me to think about the MoQ from this perspective (not
> as a religion, not as an act of faith) but as a true statement of
> Reality...of Quality.

Steve:
In the MOQ, "true statements about reality" are not to be confused
with Quality itself and there is not just one true statement to be
made about reality...

Pirsig in Lila:
"If subjects and objects are held to be the
ultimate reality then we're permitted only one construction of things-that
which corresponds to the "objective" world-and all other constructions are
unreal.  But if Quality or excellence is seen as the ultimate reality then
it becomes possible for more than one set of truths to exist.  Then one
doesn't seek the absolute "Truth."  One seeks instead the highest quality
intellectual explanation of things with the knowledge that if the past is
any guide to the future this explanation must be taken provisionally; as
useful until something better comes along.  One can then examine
intellectual realities the same way he examines paintings in an art
gallery, not with an effort to find out which one is the "real" painting,
but simply to enjoy and keep those that are of value.  There are many sets
of intellectual reality in existence and we can perceive some to have more
quality than others, but that we do so is, in part, the result of our
history and current patterns of values."


Andre:
>The positing of the MoQ in this context gave me
> a further glimpse into how Bodvar ‘experiences’ the MoQ. He firmly and
> absolutely believes in it...though believing is an inappropriate
> expression to use. And, just as the Bible is perceived as containing
> the actual words of God ( not symbolically but real...to our Christian
> believers), so is the MoQ as a metaphysics, a statement, a programme
> perceived by Bodvar to be a statement of Reality... of Quality written
> by Phaedrus. Not just any Phaedrus. No! The Phaedrus of ZMM and as on
> occasions he appears in LILA.
> This is then why Bodvar  treats, for example, the reality/concept, the
> abstract/concrete, the reality/language, the Quality/MoQ, dichotomies
> with such derision. The Quality reality has ‘absolved’ us from these
> because the S/O reality has been ‘overcome’ by a ‘higher’
> understanding. The DQ/SQ reality which ‘contains’ everything as moral
> patterns of value. How, Bodvar asks, can one pattern of value
> (language) 'make' another pattern of value any less real? The social
> word 'tree' (as a social PoV) is not the same as the 'tree' as an
> inorganic PoV?
>
> As he said to Marsha, does naming DQ detract from its reality?
>
> The bone of contention, of course remains that Bodvar argues that, the
> way to contain S/O thinking is to make it static and to make it the
> 4th level of the MoQ as the only way to overcome its influence and
> tentacles. This ‘frees’ DQ from inadvertently being placed in the
> service of SOM. It allows the MoQ understanding to ‘reign’ with SOM
> being firmly and securely behind (intellect[ual]) lock and key. And
> reign one does ‘from above’ and not from the same ‘level’!
...

Steve:
You've painted Bo as the true believer, as some sort of MOQ
fundamentalist--an odd sort of fundamentalist who does not see the
actual text of what Pirsig wrote in inventing his MOQ as having much
to do with the MOQ--as if Bo is the one who is being the most faithful
to Pirsig's MOQ while also claiming that Pirsig himself has the MOQ
all wrong. This is absurd.

Andre:
> What Bodvar also asked me (or rather, through this moment of
> realisation) confronted me with, is to what extent I am committed to
> (or want to surrender to) the full implications of the MoQ.(if I
> accept that Bodvar does have a real, genuine point). Do I want to
> treat it as a stimulating academic subject? Do I want to dabble in it
> as a dilettante? To what extent do I accept this Q-reality and to what
> extent am I willing to commit myself? And, will I do this full-time or
> part-time? Do I want to live the MoQ?

Steve:
What do you think it means to commit yourself to the MOQ?


Best,
Steve