[MD] Metaphysics

[MarshaV]

Hi Steve,

I can only believe that in spite of the problems, when RMP goes 
on to create a metaphysics he trying to define reality to the best 
of his explanatory ability and is not writing a fairy tale.  So I agree 
with Bo, RMP, in the MoQ, is describing reality.  

I think the MoQ represents reality to be Quality(Dynamic & static).
That's more than just a general branch of philosophy.  That's a specific 
view.  It's up to you to verify his insights through experience.


Marsha




On Jan 13, 2010, at 11:54 AM, Steven Peterson wrote:

> Hi Marsha, Bo, All,
> 
> Marsha:
>> I still like to hear an agreed upon definition of metaphysics.
> 
> The issue between Bo and I is that we don't agree on the meaning of
> the word. I think what's of issue is the more specific question of
> what the "M" in Pirsig's philosophy "the MOQ" means. We should
> consider what Pirsig himself says he means by the term "metaphysics."
> 
> Here is the passage in Lila where he talks about metaphysics in general:
> 
> "Metaphysics was an area of study that had interested him more than
> any other as an undergraduate philosophy student in the United States
> and later as a graduate student in India....Metaphysics is what
> Aristotle called the First Philosophy.  It's a
> collection of the most general statements of a hierarchical structure
> of thought.  On one of his slips he had copied a definition of it as
> "that part of philosophy which deals with the nature and structure of
> reality." It asks such questions as, "Are the objects we perceive real
> or illusory? Does the external world exist apart from our
> consciousness of it?  Is reality ultimately reducible to a single
> underlying substance?  If so, is it essentially spiritual or material?
> Is the universe intelligible and orderly or incomprehensible and
> chaotic?""
> 
> Steve:
> So there you have your definition straight from Pirsig. Bo of course
> disgrees. He says that metaphysics IS reality. Some philospphers may
> use metaphysics the way Bo uses it, while others perhaps agree with
> Pirsig's definition, but that isn't of ussue. It doesn't really matter
> what metaphysics REALLY means in this discussion. It only matters how
> Pirsig uses the term in the phrase that he coined: "the Metaphysics of
> Quality."
> 
> Again, the question should be, "What does Pirsig mean when he calls
> his philosophy "a metaphysics"?" First of all, his use of "a
> metaphysics" rather than simply "metaphysics" is an interesting and
> unusual use of the term since in the subject-object picture there is
> only one correct construction of things--one possible correct
> metaphysics.
> 
> But Pirsig has a mystical bent. He says, "Historically mystics have
> claimed that for a true understanding of reality metaphysics is too
> "scientific."  Metaphysics is not reality.  Metaphysics is names about
> reality.  Metaphysics is a restaurant where they give you a
> thirty-thousand page menu and no food."
> 
> SOM philosophers have been eating at this restaurant for thousands of
> years. Since Bo agrees with the SOMers that metaphysics is reality, he
> is looking to the MOQ as the one true understanding of reality. While
> Andre wants to paint Bo in this regard as the true believer in this
> forum, he is just one more customer like the rest of us at the
> restaurant with no food. Bo is just the one who doesn't know it.
> 
> And becuase he doesn't know it, he is the sort that Pirsig is
> channelling when he says, "A metaphysics must be divisible, definable
> and knowable, or there isn't any metaphysics.  Since a metaphysics is
> essentially a kind of dialectical definition and since Quality is
> essentially outside definition, this means that a "Metaphysics of
> Quality" is essentially a contradiction in terms, a logical
> absurdity."
> 
> In other words, from the SOM perspective, the MOQ is no true
> metaphysics (a logical absurdity in fact), but we already knew that.
> However, from the MOQ perspective--using the word "metaphysics" in
> Pirsig's retooling of the term--SOM is also a metaphysics of Quality,
> since both SOM and Pirsig's MOQ satisfy Pirsig's definition of
> metaphysics:
> 
> "It's a collection of the most general statements of a hierarchical
> structure of thought...that part of philosophy which deals with the
> nature and structure of reality."
> 
> Marsha:
>> Well, in that case I would say the MoQ is a metaphysics that includes within it >four static levels of patterns of which the fourth (top) level is comprised of >intellectual patterns based on a  Subject/Object Metaphysics.
> 
> Steve:
> Since metaphysics is just a part of philosophy and since philosphy is
> only a subset of all intellectual patterns, then all intellectual
> patterns are not based on subject/object metaphysics.
> 
> Best,
> Steve
> 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/

  
_______________________________________________________________________
   
Shoot for the moon.  Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars...