[MD] Windmills and Intellectual Pots

[Paul Turner]

Bo,

>Come on Paul, the moment Pirsig launched the Realty=Quality
>thesis he shifted from one reality to another. There is no bridge
>from the Subject/Object to the DQ/SQ one. There's no  common
>"X" that only get divided differently. I don't know how this illusion
>manages to survive.

Paul:  The premise that a thesis actually constitutes reality is idealism,
Bo.  

>> I asked Bo
>> how he defines metaphysics and, unless he corrects me, he said, "A
>> logical, coherent universe of thought."  So if reality is constituted
>> by metaphysics and metaphysics is a logical, coherent universe of
>> thought, then reality just is a logical, coherent universe of thought.
>
>"Of thought" is, as Mati pointed out, intellect. 

Paul:  So you take that part of the definition back.  You are left with
"reality is a logical coherent universe."  Still sounds Hegelian to me, or
perhaps just rationalist.

>> Apart from this there is another problem here.  It follows from the
>> above that until the MOQ was written static and Dynamic Quality didn't
>> exist.  If this is the case, given that the MOQ says that evolution is
>> the migration of static patterns toward Dynamic Quality, how did the
>> universe evolve prior to Bob Pirsig?
>
>This is YOUR problem caused by the illusion that the MOQ and
>SOM are interchangeable.

Paul:  I'm not saying they are interchangeable, I am saying that one
contains the other in a larger context and explains the same phenomena
explained by SOM.  Subjects and objects are phenomena but whereas SOM took
one or the other to be the primary cause of or condition for experience, the
MOQ describes them as static products of experience and adds that the
experience which produces them is value.  

>I can't understand why Pirsig - after
>pointing to the Newton' gravity analogy - neglects it. (annotation
>97) Until Newton there were no gravity, the fact that things fell
>where explained by other physics models. The metaphysical shift
>is exactly the same; the moment you understand the MOQ the
>world becomes a Quality Reality, one that has evolved
>accordingly from time immemorial - with inorganic value its first
>fallout.

Paul:  I think Pirsig's point is that one knows "Quality reality" before
understanding the MOQ.  My young children certainly know it.  The MOQ is a
thesis which no more causes evolution than Newton caused apples to fall.

>Mati:
>> >I don't want to assume what Bo's is thinking in this but I am
>> >intrigued by his choice of definition. Pirsig statement was, "As long
>> >as you're inside a logical, coherent universe of thought you can't
>> >escape metaphysics." Try this on for size and see if it has the same
>> >meaning, "As long as your're inside a universe of intellect, you
>> >can't escape metaphysics."
>
>> Paul:  Well, that certainly isn't what Bo is saying because clearly he
>> doesn't identify a logical, coherent universe of thought with
>> intellect, he equates it with metaphysics, and metaphysics with
>> reality.
>
>Hope this clears things up?

Paul:  No, but we are too far apart to get anywhere, aren't we?  I can't
ever imagine getting you to appreciate my understanding of the MOQ nor the
problems inherent in yours and I'm sure the opposite is true.  You have Mati
and Michael supporting you now so perhaps one day the whole of the MD will
be Bodvarian and your mission will be accomplished.  My changing
circumstances and priorities mean that I won't be around to try and prevent
that happening so I bid you farewell and wish you, and anyone else reading,
a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! 

Regards

Paul