[MD] What does Pirsig mean by metaphysics?

[David Thomas]

Bo,
>>[Dave before]
>> Given that, I still don't understand why all this fuss trying to
>> incorporate "SOM" into YOUR philosophy.
> [Bo response]
> Don't you see? Reason's (SOM's) struggle to free existence from the
> mythological prison was a moral struggle and a great moral victory.
Of course I see and agree the victories won by S/O thinking were large and
important. I'm just not as afraid of the SOM boogieman as a metaphysics
because to some degree it is an ancient ghost which science (though maybe
not society) has moved beyond.
> This cannot be something that the MOQ overrides and the notion of an
> intellectual level where SOM once dominated and now the MOQ will
> dominate is untenable. If so isn't the mythological past also an
> intellectual pattern? And soon all existence is "intellectual" and voila,
> SOM - as idealism - is back in force.
Intellectual patterns of value are nothing but thoughts, ideas, and the
physical knowledge artifacts that records them. The selection of which
thoughts and ideas rise to this level is by and large a constant, active,
ongoing, group activity. Pruning the outdated, unwarranted ones. Testing and
integrating the new. The principle patterns residing there are ideas about
the nature of reality which are in an almost constant dynamic shuffling. But
we're back to the old map/terrain metaphor. Individual and groups of humans
are constantly building and rebuilding the intellectual map of our reality
the terrain of which is not ideas but physical, biological, social and yes
intellectual values. Your introduction of "container logic", which I admit
do not fully understand, sound to me like an introduced paradox, like Zeno's
never reaching the turtle, a paradox of thinking not reality.

> It is SOM's "M" which is the culprit, pretending the S/O to be
> existence's fundament leads to all kinds of ill effects, while the S/O
> distinction has lifted existence from religious tyranny to modernity. And
> this MUST be kept high and dry, and that is only possible by relegating
> it the position of the highest static level, after all it is subordinated the
> DQ/SQ configuration.
To a large degree this is a problem just like Descartes' "mind". The problem
was created by the philosopher, in this case RMP. In order to illuminate the
problems created by the S/O line of reasoning he created SOM where none
existed before now you are trying to incorporated this fiction into reality.
 
 > BTW. What do you make of the diagram in ZAMM (page 243 in my
> copy) where the subject/object reality  (Classic) is also called
> "intellectual"?  Doesn't this indicate that Phaedrus original insight was
> the SOL one? An note that no one - absolutely no one - applies the
> MOQ to anything at all (except me) for the plain reason that it is only
> the SOL interpretation that gives it its mighty explanatory power.
> Without it ....it's nil and void.

I have looked them over several times and have them in front of me as I
type. And yes at that point in time RMP is saying that classic quality is
intellectual reality which is subject-object reasoning. What is does not say
is that 15 years latter he moved "classic quality-intellectual reality -
subjective and objective reality" straight across to the MoQ in a direct one
for one transfer making it the complete intellectual level in the new
system. In fact his whole MoQ project can be viewed, and I think he say it
somewhere, in part a way to expand the intellectual level to make in more
inclusive. SO thinking was too restrictive, left out too many "things" that
ought to have been included and caused too many "platypussies". And I agree.
In fact the more I look closely at what might be considered "intellectual"
it may not be broad enough. For instance what part of art, morals, ethics,
hell even literature, are a part of the intellectual level under the MoQ?
All, none, some? I sure as hell don't know. And RMP sure isn't clear.

And as I've said before the whole Romantic Quality-PreIntellectual Reality
side disappeared. And don't tell me it is Dynamic Quality. Between the
cutting edge of experience and the engagement of the intellect a whole lot
of very basic and important things are going on. Where does that fit?

Dave

> 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/