[MD] The Quality/MOQ meta-metaphysics

[X Acto]

A nice explanation of the claim of "greater explanatory power".

After reading "Metaphysics" one can see the connections,
I'm really enjoying Aristotle. Bob has inspired me to really
research the tradition of "philosophy" , it's always neat
to see new in the old.



----- Original Message ----
From: david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Mon, June 28, 2010 6:23:57 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] The Quality/MOQ meta-metaphysics


Hoarse said to Platt:

Where did Pirsig say this? [that there might be a fifth level of Art] I believe he talked about a code of art and this was in the context of relating Intellect to DQ. If there is a level of art then it becomes static quality - something that art is not - or shouldn't be anyway!

dmb says:

I think that's right. The fifth and final moral code speaks to the relation between intellect and DQ.

"The MOQ says that science's empirical rejection of biological and social values is not only rationally correct, it is also morally correct because the intellectual patterns of science are of a higher evolutionary order than the old biological and social patterns. But the MOQ also says that DQ - the value-force that chooses an elegant mathematical solution to a laborious one, or a brilliant experiment over a confusing, inconclusive one - is another matter altogether. DQ is a higher moral order than static scientific truth, and it is as immoral for philosophers of science to try to suppress DQ as it is for church authorities to suppress scientific method. Dynamic value is an integral part of science. It's the cutting edge of scientific progress itself."

I think this passage speaks to the specific nature of the code of art, but it also speaks to the issue of anti-intellectualism and to Bo's equation. I mean, this is what expanded rationality looks like, this is what non-SOM intellect is all about. It puts the emphasis on excellence by putting the creative aspect of science at the center of things rather than objectivity or certainty. That's different from amoral, value-free science but it also very from anti-intellectualism.

Pirsig identifies with James's radical empiricism on the previous page, by the way, and in the paragraph that follows that passage Pirsig says the MOQ is a form of Pragmatism. He's reiterating the moral codes in that context, which strikes me as meaningful. The idea, I think, is that the moral codes add just what James needs. They allow for a distinction between social practicality and intellectual practicality that tightens up the pragmatic theory of truth. And since Pirsig equates his central term with James's pure experience, it adds a lot of rich detail that James never got around to. 


                        
_________________________________________________________________
The New Busy is not the too busy. Combine all your e-mail accounts with Hotmail.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multiaccount&ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_4
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/md/archives.html