[MD] Metaphysics

[Steven Peterson]

Hi Andre,

On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 1:18 AM, Andre Broersen <andrebroersen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Steve to Andre:
> Where do you find this "true MOQ sense" of the word metaphysics?
>
> Andre:
> Well Steve, to be pedantic, these were Bodvar’s words and I understand
> his words to mean that the description of reality given by Pirsig is
> the most accurate description possible without falling into SOM
> distinctions and arguments. As I quoted him (Bodvar), merely naming DQ
> does that make DQ any less real?


Steve:
This is not what I've criticized Bo for.


> Steve:
> 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:
> Pirsig himself has stated that his philosophy (the MoQ) is more
> encompassing, inclusive and has far more explanatory power than
> everything that has gone before...i.e.SOM in all its variations and
> guises. Northrop continually criticises philosophies on the basis of
> confusing the’ ought’ with the’ is’. Most philosophies do not reflect
> what ‘is’ but the way things ‘ought to be’/ or ‘should be’ and upon
> this basis analyse ‘reality’ and project (future) ways of thinking and
> acting. (Marx’s dialectical materialism, based on Hegel, Fichte and
> its source, Kant is a [disastrous] case in point.
> Actually, the MoQ is the first metaphysics I have come across to
> reflect the ‘is’ as opposed to the ‘ought’. And in this sense I
> understand Pirsig’s own caution that his MoQ is not a quick fix
> programme that will solve all moral conflicts in this world overnight.
> It merely clarifies and orders Reality within a moral, evolutionary
> framework i.e. DQ/SQ.

Steve:
Agreed. What does any of this have to do with my criticism of Bo?



>
> 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...
>
> Andre:
> Agree, all statements referring to the inorganic, organic, social and
> intellectual level are provisional.
>
> 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:
> Indeed I have painted Bodvar as a forceful,  committed and passionate
> follower of Quality. The truth of his interpretation of the MoQ
> remains provisional. All I can gather from his arguments and evidence
> is that it makes sense.
> I would not claim, and doubt if Bodvar actually says this, that Pirsig
> has his own MoQ ‘all wrong’.

Steve:
Stick around, or just check the archives. Bo indeed thinks that Pirsig
does not understand the MOQ which is absurd if the MOQ is the
philosophy of Robert M Pirsig.

Andre:
>What I do detect (and Bodvar has been at
> this much longer than I have)  is that Pirsig’s statements are, at
> times, ambiguous ( which is okay) confusing ( which is sort of okay)
> and contradictory ( which is not very helpful...to wit: the
> intellectual level).
>
> And then, amongst others, Krimel comes along with his ideas about this
> level, John has other ideas, Bodvar  has his ideas...it seems we all
> have our own ideas about this.

Steve:
You could add to the list Matt, Arlo, and I and probably everyone else
here. We all have disagreements with Pirsig on many points. What none
of these others do and what I have been criticizing Bo for doing is
calling his ideas about how the MOQ could be improved "the true MOQ."

Bo supposes that there is a "true MOQ" somewhere "out there" that Bo's
sentences conform to better than Pirsig's own words do.


Andre:
>The test is to match them against the
> words and consistency of Pirsig’s own arguments and definitions. And,
> to be fair, in the end we use our own experience of Quality as we
> integrate them within the static PoV’s we call our own, which leads to
> a further diversification and richness of everything else.

Steve:
Pirsig has responded to Bo's SOL thesis several times and told him
that SOL is not what he means by the intellectual level. Bo is
frustrated that Pirsig does not recognize "the true MOQ" when he is
presented with it by Bo.