[MD] Metaphysics

[MarshaV]

On Jan 13, 2010, at 2:19 PM, Steven Peterson wrote:

> 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:
You've got one sad ego.

You are satisfied with the MoQ as a theory.  I am satisfied with the MoQ representing 
insight and experience.  I do not know if what Bo says is based on experience or
not.  For me, Quality IS reality; Quality being unpatterned experience and
patterned experience.  So maybe the MoQ is both theory and experience.  




> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>>> 
>>> 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.

The MoQ is also Reality equals Quality(Dynamic and static).


> 
>> 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..."



If I remember correctly the Bagginii interview was called a hostile, 
unsuccessful interview.

Steve, my disagreeing with you is nothing personal.  Neither is my
agreeing with that most difficult Bo.   


Marsha








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