[MD] Metaphysics

[skutvik at online.no]

Marsha, Steve, Andre, All

13 Jan.

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.

Right you are. I must at times pinch my arm if I'm awake when reading 
Steve's "strange loops", how he seemingly believes in MOQ's validity, 
but then the next moment says that ANY theory - even if it declares 
MOQ nil and void - is still a MOQ. 

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.

Phew, Newton's theory heralded the Gravity Reality! That was 
Phaedrus' contention in ZAMM. Apples fell to the ground before 
Newton but that was NOT attributed to gravity. The MOQ  heralds the 
Quality Reality. There was a SOM reality before Pirsig, bit its workings 
were NOT attributed to the DQ/SQ. Newton clarified some very 
complicated explanations , the same goes for the MOQ. But to Steve 
the previous SOM were just as good. Good Grief! 

Marsha:
> > I disagree with you.  I see it, through experience, as Bo sees it.

Thanks, Marsha your are Quality-tuned. Stay that way.

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.

Everybody understand what I mean, namely that the MOQ introduces 
the Quality Reality  - in contrast to the SOM (that the MOQ relegates a 
static level position within its own) The fallacy that must be weeded out 
is the notion that the SOM - while dominant - was a "MOQ"  and that a 
future X metaphysics  that rejects the MOQ still is a "MOQ". It really 
need no weeding, no one with their faculties intact adheres to it

Bodvar   
































>>
> >> 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
> 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/
> 
>