[MD] reality, experience, value

[skutvik at online.no]

Kevin and Marsha.

You two had a "touch and go" with the platypus issue.

8 March Kevin wrote after citing Marsha's 
 
> > At the end of Chapter 8, in LILA, the section that starts, "A third
> > major platypus handled by the Metaphysics of Quality is the
> > "causation" platypus...".
 
> Thanks for mentioning this.  Yes, Pirsig's "platipi" are all good
> examples of how language and perspective can affect a person's
> approach to reality. He describes the "value" platypus, the
> "scientific reality" platypus, the "causation" platypus and the
> "substance" platypus.  And his Metaphysics of Quality is his answer to
> the question "which [hierarchy of metaphysical classification] is
> best."

I don't know if this is what you are saying, but the Platypis are 
(according to Pirsig) the paradoxes created by SOM's flawed 
approach, and the MOQ is supposed to solve them. However, we 
better look to the origin of the paradox term, namely classic 
Greek physics that created such, but these weren't SOLVED by 
modern physics, they rather DISSOLVED.

"B values A" instead of "A causes B" sounds as if the MOQ 
solves SOM's paradoxes while it is supposed to dissolve them as 
in the above example. And this is what the SOL interpretation 
does by relegating SOM the role of MOQ's intellectual level. All 
levels are "platypic" in the sheer capacity of being static, thus "A 
causes B" is not metaphysically valid, (the "B values A" is how 
things REALLY works) Yet, it is not useful to create Q varieties of 
all scientific branches. An example:

Newton's physics created its own platypus, best known is the 
speed of light problem which DISSOLVED in the - er - light of 
Einstein's Relativity. But at this stage it is not useful to apply 
Relativity for every single task, all the worlds computers would be 
busy for yars calculating the most simple task (f.ex. a satellite's 
orbit) Newton's physics does this perfect unless extremes (speed 
or gravitation) are involved. 

See the point? intellect's S/O does things perfect unless 
extremes are involved (i.e. metaphysical questions) in which 
case the MOQ's dynamic/static view must be applied. But a 
science bothered with translating every single thing to MOQish 
would be bogged completely down. So I repeat after Christ  "Give 
unto Caesar what the Caesar's is and unto God what God's is (or 
how it is said in English)

Kevin added:

> Imagine the outcome of a similarly intense inquiry into the question
> "what is love?"

Is that such a mystery?. It's an emotion and such belonging to the 
social level. As does hatred, the two are closely related.

 Bo