[MD] Academy

[ian glendinning]

Bo, SA, Ron,

Interesting change of tone there Bo ?

But if all you are saying is that any metaphysics has an axiomatic
unprovable-assertion / inexplicable-entity at its core - then "Hear,
hear."

Do you think Ron and/or SA are missing that ?
Ian

On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 9:43 AM,  <skutvik at online.no> wrote:
> On 9 May 2008 at 13:00, Heather Perella wrote:
>
> > SA:  Bo, this is what I mean.  Where up above do you
> > say what dq/sq split is, other than an axiom?  This is
> > the same as saying lapodocoldieameida is reality.  I'm
> > not trying to be harsh, but if you can't say what
> > dq/sq split is, then lapodocoldieameida might be
> > better instead.  Don't you think?  Is your reality
> > complete mu, complete denial of everything, such as
> > Jainism?  If these comments are true, then your
> > reality is truly personal, thus, something I wouldn't
> > know about only you would.  Is that your intent?
>
> You must be denser than the Adirondack  woods. Do you think
> that a metaphysics can start without one or more axioms?  And
> accusing ME of the DQ/SQ just being an axiom!! I have been
> around this discussion under the impression of the participants
> knowing  the basics of philosophy, but must obviously  revise
> this.
>
> Now, my frustration dissipated, I will admit that Pirsig actually
> tried to hide the axiomatic nature of his Reality=Quality sentence
> by trying to show that quality permeates it all (the Hot Stove
> example) but this is futile, what reality is before a split is "mu",
> the MOQ starts with the DQ/SQ split and it's best stated that this
> is an axiom, but creates a better metaphysics than the SOM.
>
> In ZAMM Pirsig uses Euclid's geometry to show that E. tried to
> hide one axiom as "natural", namely the fifth.
>
>    It had long been sought in vain, he said, to demonstrate
>    the axiom known as Euclid's fifth postulate 268 and this
>    search was the start of the crisis. Euclid's postulate of
>    parallels, which states that through a given point there's
>    not more than one parallel line to a given straight line, we
>    usually learn in tenth-grade geometry. It is one of the
>    basic building blocks out of which the entire mathematics
>    of geometry is constructed.
>
>  When this was demasked by  Bolyai and Lobachevski, other
> geometries were suddenly possible.
>
> I believe Pirsig compared himself with this, he himself having
> demasked SOM's hidden axiom that, like Euclid's 5th, looked
> obvious but being revealed allowed for a new non-S/O
> metaphysics, something he created, but tried to avoid the
> Euclidian trap by making the MOQ a mere theory about Quality.
> While I think he should have faced the bull and declared the
> DQ/SQ as his axiom that would create a better metaphysics.
>
> The Quality=Reality can be compared to a geometrican declaring
> space to be the real thing and all geometries just theories about
> it, but we know that it's the other way round, geometries CREATE
> our notion of space.
>
> Nuff said
>
> Bo
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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/
>