[MD] Metaphysics

[Ian Glendinning]

BTW Bo (and intelocutors) read this, but beware the loop in your brain ;-)
http://xkcd.com/688/
Ian

On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 1:14 PM, Ian Glendinning
<ian.glendinning at gmail.com> wrote:
> Bo asked ..
>
>> 1) Is the DQ of MOQ's DQ/SQ something else than Quality?
>
> Yes, they both comprise Quality, but DQ is the immediate quality
> exprienced in the moment, whereas Quality also ends up fossilized in
> various longer lived patterns.
>
>> 2) If Pirsig said that Quality IS the DQ, will that alter anything?
>
> Yes, but not problematically, just a definitional problem in what we
> say static patterns comprise.
>
>> 3) How do you manage to make the MOQ fit inside a smaller part of
>> its own (the intellectual level) without violating the container logic.?
>
> What ? No problem at all. It fits inside a strange loop - the MoQ
> itself and the intellectual patterns representing it are different
> categories. What container logic and which religious authority says it
> must be complied with ? (Stop running away from discussions on better
> logic Bo)
>
>> 4) If there emerges a world view - a metaphysics - that claims that the
>> MOQ is hogwash, is that still one of the countless possible
>> descriptions of Quality?
>
> In principle yes, but in practice anyone claiming that would have an
> argument on their hands to modify their / our ideas. Ideas evolve,
> Pirsig says so, and his MoQ supports that beautifully.
>
> And as John said beautifully Bo, why do you want to cast the MoQ and
> intellect in stone anyway. Let's have the courage of our convictions
> that the MoQ can take its own medicine, and apply to itself, and not
> build concrete defenses agains evolution.
>
> Ian
>