[MD] Philosophy and Philosophology

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi Ham

1 Aug. 

I had said to Matt

> > ZAMM (in retrospect) rips the metaphysical rank from SOM by
> > postulating a deeper reality of which SOM (now merely the S/O
> > distinction) is a fall-out.  In the full-fledged MOQ - with
> > intellect the S/O aggregate - we see the enormous impact the MOQ
> > will have on Western philosophy. With one stroke the trail of
> > paradoxes that SOM has left since the Greeks - climaxing with Kant -
> > dissolves. They emerged because the S/O was regarded as fundamental
> > - as the meta-reality.

Ham responded:
 
> I cannot accept your premise that the S/O duality has "metaphysical"
> ranking or status.

At least you seem to see what the MOQ implies. Not accepting it is 
trivial compared to those who aren't even capable of THAT. 

> The term "metaphysics" is derived from the Greek roots "meta-"
> (meaning "beyond" or "after") and "physis" (nature or physical
> reality), and it originally referred to the writings of Aristotle that
> followed his investigation of the sciences.  Traditionally,
> metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that attempts to understand
> the fundamental nature of reality, whether visible, invisible, or
> transcendent.  Hence, 'SOM' is actually a misnomer.  The
> subject/object perspective has always been the universal worldview. 
> It is not now, nor has it ever been, "metaphysics".

You grasp of what's at stake is firm. It's the subject/object schism as a 
metaphysics that everything is about,  that of pointing to Aristotle's as 
the instigator of SOM, i.e. an (objective) "reality", the investigation of 
which (subjective) metaphysics is about. And then Phaedrus going 
one step up making SOM a fall-out - a stage - of a higher 
metaphysical order. Denying a SOM - claiming that the subject/object 
perspective is the ultimate one  - is the only defense, if the S/O as 
"M" is acknowledged the case is lost.       

> Also, with due respect for Mr. Pirsig, I see no evidence for what you
> foresee as an "enormous impact the MOQ will have on Western
> philosophy." You describe the S/O duality as a fallout from a "deeper
> reality" in which "intellect is the S/O aggregate."   Aggregate is
> simply a fancy word for "collection".  Are you suggesting that merely
> by positing subjects and objects as a collection of constituent
> patterns, instead of a duality, Pirsig has transformed philosophy for
> all time?  That smacks of hyperbole to me.

If possible I'm even more impressed. However, Mr Pirsig let go of the 
stranglehold he had on SOM, instead of making intellect identical to 
SOM (like Phaedrus did) he launched a mind-like variety, something 
that brought the MOQ back into Aristotle's fold. The reality=quality 
sentence would not have shocked Aristotle as long as the 
fundamental slash was between reality and the metaphysics.  

> The MOQ is a euphemistic philosophy whose central theme is that
> Quality (DQ) is primary to experience and "moves toward betterness"
> over time.  Even if what we perceive as objects are only patterns of
> this quality, evolution is the history of the universe, e.g., the
> physical (experiential)world. Quality (Value) itself is an aesthetic
> sensibility of the subject.  The truth of the matter is that Pirsig's
> thesis never really gets beyond 'physis', the dual nature of existence
> as understood by the early Greeks.

I may agree with you about Quality as "primary experience" (in the 
sense of humans intuitively knowing what's good) is dubious. To an 
islamist (social level) killing infidels is good while it to a NATO soldier 
(intellect) is implementing democracy. To an organism dying of thirst 
(biology) water is the ultimate good. Good varies according to depthe 
level is MOQ's message.
 
What we perceive as objects are "objects" and what we perceive as 
thoughts are "thoughts" ... on the intellectual level. Intellect is our 
natural abode, we can't wander around in the high country 
permanently, but armed with MOQ's knowledge the intellectual 
existence presents no enigmas.         

> Therefore, I was somewhat surprised by your closing remarks to Matt:
 
> > Such a dissolution we have an example of in the early Greek physics
> > and its fallacious premises that produced a lot of paradoxes
> > (Xenon's Achilles and the Turtle f.ex) With Newton's physics new
> > premises the paradoxes weren't exactly solved, they just disappeared
> > without a trace.  The MOQ has done the same, but to you (all)  the
> > SOM paradoxes are so infinite dear, what would academical philosophy
> > do without them?
 
> The so-called "parodoxes" existed before the Greek premises and
> Newton's laws reflected on them.  And they exist today, despite the
> attempts of Pirsig to render them "patterns of quality".  The quality
> may be "real", but quality could not be known wthout a sensible agent
> to pattern it.

About Newton's physics dissolving the paradoxes created by the 
Greeks feeble grasp - among other of inertia - is an established fact 
(as is the Ptolemaian-Copernican cosmology example) The 
comparison with MOQ's solution of the SOM-induced paradoxes I find 
justified, but is party spoiled by RMP not completing the MOQ, the 
"two upper levels=subjective/the two lower=objective" is weak. Only 
SOM=Intellect meets all demands.     

Sincerely

Bodvar.