[MD] Metaphysics

[Steven Peterson]

Hi Marsha,

On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 1:54 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>
> On Jan 13, 2010, at 1:35 PM, Steven Peterson wrote:
>
>> Hi Marsha,
>>
>> Marsha:
>>> 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.
>>
>> Steve:
>> You've missed the point. In saying this above you are agreeing with me
>> and disagreeing with Bo. For him the MOQ is not a description of
>> reality, it literally IS reality.
>
>
> Marsha:
> I disagree with you.  I see it, through experience, as Bo sees it.


Steve:
Some day maybe you'll explain what awful thing I did to you. For some
reason it seems very important for you to disagree with me, but every
time you say as you said again below such things as "The MoQ
represents, for me, Quality/Reality as unpatterned experience and
patterned experience" it is Bo rather than me you are disagreeing
with. For him the MOQ doesn't "represent" anything. It literally is
reality.





>>
>> Marsha:
>>> 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.
>>
>> Steve:
>> I'm saying that this specific DQ/SQ representation of reality known as
>> the MOQ is intended as part of a broader philosophical tradition of
>> trying to represent reality through answering traditionally asked
>> questions about reality known as metaphysics. That's why Pirsig uses
>> this term and explains what he means by metaphysics before explaining
>> the specifics of his metaphysics.
>
> Marsha:
> If you want to look at the MoQ relative to the broader and general
> philosophical tradition, do so.  The MoQ represents, for me, Quality/
> Reality as unpatterned experience and patterned experience, and
> it correlates with my experience.  You stick with the finger, I'm shooting
> for the moon.


Steve:
In this anaology the moon is reality. The MOQ is the finger. Pirsig
says so himself.

>From the Baggini interview...
"PIRSIG: Yes, the Metaphysics of Quality itself is static and should
be separated from the Dynamic Quality it talks about. Like the rest of
the printed philosophic tradition it doesn't change from day to day,
although the world it talks about does. To use an Oriental metaphor,
it is just another finger pointing toward the moon..."

Best,
Steve