[MD] Metaphysics

[skutvik at online.no]

Steve, Andre, All.

9 Jan. 

Andre had said::
> > 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:
> 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.

Pirsig is ambiguous that much we know, but one interpretation of the 
MOQ must be THE MOQ - the "many truth" statement i untenable and 
paradoxical -  and we have two options, 1) "The MOQ is one 
intellectual pattern" 2) "Intellect is MOQ's 4th. level" (SOL) Those two 
cannot be reconciled.. 

Pirsig's above sounds like supporting #1, it is his infamous 
"Quality/MOQ" meta-metaphysics and I just wonder what made him do 
the MOQ this disservice? All the more that it goes against the very 
grain of young Phaedrus insight in ZAMM. I paraphrase:       

    He coined a law intended to have the humor of a Parkinson's 
    law that "The number of MOQs that can describe Quality is 
    infinite"  It pleased him never to run out of MOQs. Even when 
    his experimental work seemed dead-end in every conceivable 
    way, he knew that if he just sat down and muddled about it 
    long enough, sure enough, another MOQ would come along. 
    And it always did. It was only months after he had coined the 
    law that he began to have some doubts about the humor or 
    benefits of it. If true, that law is not a minor flaw in the Quality 
    reasoning. The law is completely nihilistic. It is a catastrophic 
    logical disproof of the general validity of the MOQ"  

This was what made young Phaedrus flunk school and set him on his 
lateral drift from which the Quality Idea crystallized and the insight that 
the above "law of infinite number of explanations" - was the proof of  
SOM's invalidity and - further -the first tentative MOQ that would set 
this right by making SOM a "static" fallout  ... CALLED INTELLECT!!!!. 

For Pirsig to repeat the SOM in a thin Q disguise is catasropic!
Steve may be dour but this must penetrate his armor..  

Bodvar














 
> 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:
> 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´. 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. 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:
> What do you think it means to commit yourself to the MOQ?
> 
> Andre:
> To change, in as many ways that I can experience, a SOM steeped past
> into a MoQ immersed now.
> 
> Cheers,
> Andre
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
> 
>