[MD] Metaphysics

[Steven Peterson]

Hi Bo,

On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 4:21 AM,  <skutvik at online.no> wrote:
> Steve, All.
>
> 12 Jan. you said:
>
>> The answer to your question
>
> I did not ask any question, but simply showed that the very problem
> that Phaedrus identified as SOM - and what the MOQ is supposed to
> resolve - is perpetuated by the Quality/MOQ "meta-metaphysics". You,
> however, continue to cite passages that affirm the fallacy - like Ron
> you think this "wikipedian" tactics will work.

Steve:
No, I don't actually expect any reference to Pirsig's words to sway
you since you don't see the MOQ as having much to do with what Pirsig
thinks it is.

Bo:
> I guess it's useless but now I'll pose a few questions.
>
> 1) Is the DQ of MOQ's DQ/SQ something else than Quality?
>
> 2) If Pirsig said that Quality IS the DQ, will that alter anything?

Steve:
I don't understand what you are getting at. The capital Q's in the
above indeed refer to Quality. So....?

Bo:
> 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.?

Steve:
Since you equate the MOQ with reality, fitting all of reality into the
intellectual level is a problem for you. But accpording to the MOQ,
the MOQ is not reality. Quality is reality. The Metaphysics of Quality
is words about reality (Quality) rather than reality (Quality) itself.



> 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?

If Quality is reality then what else could such a metaphysics be?

Perhaps much confusion would be cleared up if you keep in mind that
Quality is reality and the Metaphysics of Quality is words about
Quality. It is the philosophy of Robert M Pirsig.