[MD] Metaphysics

[John Carl]

Bo,

The MoQ is an ideal we strive to instantiate, not an image to be captured in
stone.

And if it ever is captured in stone, it will be the task of the noble
iconoclast to knock it over.  Or put another way, if you meet Buddha on the
road ...


get his autograph.  He'll die laughing.


Hey, didya know that according to the Wiki on existentialism that Buddha was
an Existentialist?

Buddha and me, baby,


> 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..
>

Sez you.  Methinks your logic is faulty.  You reason like  F. H. Bradley,
who argued that relations cannot be part of reality if reality is a unified
whole.

" If we suppose, for example, that reality includes two distinct things, *a*
 and *b*, then their existence requires a third thing, a relation, which
connects them, so that they are, in fact, two individual things in relation.
The result of the relation, however, is itself another thing, namely the
pair *a* and *b*. The relational object 'thus has two aspects', the
conjunction of *a *and *b* and its 'own inner character' as a 'whole' pair.
So, here are two more things in relation that require yet another relation
with its own inner character, and so two more things that call for still
another relation, and so on. Thus We are led by a principle of fission which
conducts us to no end. The resulting endless regress demonstrates that
relations cannot be real within a complete system because they would prevent
the system from ever becoming complete. "

Bradley's answer to the problem (roughly speaking) is to go all "Bo" on us
 and do some procrustean maneuver that  holds that relations are not real at
all but only appearances. Reality is but a single totality containing no
real relations.

Pffffttt.


 In response, Royce proposes that the universe can be understood on the
model of Dedekind's notion of an infinite system: that is, as any system
that is 'similar to a constituent (or proper) part of itself'. Such a system
'represents itself' by its similarity to a part of itself, that is, it
contains real relations while it is also a unified whole infinite system.
Such a system is therefore defined by internal relations without
self-contradiction.  And your issues with "container logic" disappear.

You're welcome.


> Steve may be dour but this must penetrate his armor..
>
> Bodvar
>


Back atcha on that one, big Bo,


John the noble iconoclast


>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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/
> >
> >
>
>
> 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/
>