[MD] What does Pirsig mean by metaphysics?

[MarshaV]

Speaking of dmb, I miss him.     




On Jan 25, 2010, at 2:12 PM, John Carl wrote:

> I didn't know that the MoQ postulated one dq realm, one sq.  I thought the
> MoQ postulates one realm - experience.  This realm of experience can be
> sliced and diced innumerable ways,  but the best way we see to divide it,
> that is, the highest quality explanation we can come up with right now, is
> that experience has a dynamic aspect and a static aspect.  The dynamic we
> term DQ, the static sq.
> 
> In this metaphysics, experience is generated by Quality.  There is no
> pre-valuation of anything.  Until something is valued, it doesn't exist.
> That's the MoQ, and why, in MoQ terms, unpatterned is a fallacy.
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>>> I use to say that Quality comprises all, but I don't really
>>> see the revolution of the Quality=Reality axiom. SOM hasn't anything
>>> which is S/O split, it simply postulates one subjective and one
>>> objective realm. Thus MOQ simply postulates one dynamic and one
>>> static realm. Can you, Steve, point to any practical difference
>>> between Dynamic Quality and Dynamic Reality?
>>> 
>> Steve:
>> I don't understand what you are getting at for most of the above, but,
>> nope.
>> I don't see a practical difference between Dynamic Quality and Dynamic
>> Reality. This is self-evident if Reality = Quality.
>> 
>> BO said:
>> 
>>> It is the pesky Quality on top (in the MOQ diagram) - then
>>> dynamic/static split, which is the source of all trouble. Dynamic
>>> Quality (or Dynamic Reality) has all the qualities (adjectives) he
>>> heaps on it, however it has spawned the known static layers that are
>>> definable, knowable ..etc.  I just can't fathom the wisdom behind
>>> making Quality something else than the DQ of the MOQ as if words is
>>> the great Satan *).
> 
> 
> Yeah, as an existentialist, I'd say that the way "reality" or "quality"
> presents itself to me, is reality, is Quality.  I have no way of
> apprehending  beyond my conception.  So why postulate so?
> 
> I guess some people just have ontological needs that are met only in the
> conceptualization of a  source, whether its a big bang, yahweh's word or the
> Essential Source, they want to have in their conceptual lexicon, something
> which contextualizes them, in time.  Even though time itself is a
> conceptualization and trying to justify any of this as "logically necessary"
> is silly and fraught with  self-contradiction.
> 
> 
> 
>> Another fallacy is using "metaphysics" in the
>>> Aristotelian (dialectical) sense after he himself realized that there is
>>> no universe outside an ordered universe. i.e metaphysics in the
>>> Pirsigean sense.
>>> 
>> The letter I wrote is posted on my blog here:
> 
> 
> Yes and good luck with that.  Your blog is well named, in fact, it appears
> to me the fundamental driving force of the MoQ Discuss all these years is
> exactly this "atheistic hope" or subtitled, "How I threw out the bathwater
> but hopefully kept the baby".
> 
> It's not that hard really, in real life, bathwater has a much more fluid
> reality than babies, which are big clumps of squalling matter  easy to
> differentiate from warmy soapy water, being not only solid, but mostly,
> noisy.  Especially if you dump them on their noggin while emptying their
> bath.
> 
> The secret to babies in baths is to tip the tub gently, with one hand on the
> baby.
> 
> The secret to philosophy is to understand value as fundamental to religion.
> 
> 
> All religion is an attempt to codify values, but freeing society from
> religious control by eliminating values is insane.   You can't have a
> society that's value free.
> 
> You try,and a lot of babies end up squalling in a pools of discarded
> bathwater.
> 
> I can answer one question for you, Pirsig reads.  He'd have to be inhuman or
> dead not to.
> 
> It's amusing to a theist like me to see how angsty and insecure the
> atheistic mind is, reminds me of Krimel in the old days of his fiery debates
> with dmb, begging for some sort of sign from on high, "Bob?"  Are you really
> out there?  Please answer me.  Please fill my uncertainty with authoritative
> confirmation...
> 
> Pathetic really.  Probably why they're so rejecting of God.  He doesn't
> deign to answer either, therefore he must not exist.
> 
> Hopefully you'll get your prayer answered Steve, so you don't end up an
> a-bobist.
> 
> Take care,
> 
> John
> 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...