[MD] Ironistic Metaphysics

[John Carl]

“All metaphysical systems are static intellectual patterns. There isn't any
other kind of metaphysics.” This is so because the MOQ describes intellect
itself as a set of static patterns.

RMP, Baggini interview<http://www.philosophersnet.com/magazine/pirsig_transcript.htm>


On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 1:17 AM, <skutvik at online.no> wrote:

Hello Steve
>
> 13 Aug. thou spaketh:
>
> > I think there is a difference in the way we are using to the term, and
> > I could easily be wrong about how metaphysics has traditionally been
> > thought of since I'm not expert on philosophy, but I tend to think
> > that something different is going on with Pirsig other than
> > metaphysics as usual. We have Pirsig actually saying that he has
> > created a new metaphysics! Has anyone else ever made that claim?
>
> I like that Steve, after ten years finally this realization!
>
> > Pirsig has offered us polar coordinates (MOQ) with the suggestion that
> > we may find it better than rectangular coordinates (SOM), while the
> > idea of metaphysics had always, as far as I know, precluded the idea
> > that there even can be more than one metaphysics.
>
> The term "metaphysics" is Aristotle's and presupposes an objective
> immutable reality "out there" that we subjectively may find the lay-out
> of. This is what the MOQ opposes and delivers an alternative to with
> its dynamic/static divide, therefore I'm uneasy about the map/terrain
> metaphor as it sort of re-introduces the S/O. The MOQ rather says
> that reality IS the DQ/SQ aggregate .... and that Aristotle's
> reality/theory  in all its shades is its own intellectual level.
>
> > As far as I know, metaphysics is not taken to be the creation of ways
> > of talking about reality/experience but the search for THE way of
> > talking about it, i.e. trying to find the language in which the
> > universe itself demands to be spoken about and to find the correct
> > sentences that the universe demands be said about it.
>
> I agree. F.ex. to say that the deepest truth is that there is no truth is
> self-defeating and why I have said that language must be kept out of
> metaphysics. The Jamesian "Reality/Concept" - what Pirsig adopted in
> by the "Quality/MOQ" form  - is untenable. Language is the stage
> where everything is played out.
>
> > Is not Pirsig then using the word "metaphysics" in an ironistic way
> > in contrast with the search for such Truth? I'd like to read him as
> > an ironist anyway.
>
> The MOQ is a meta-metaphysics compared to the Aristotelian-
> Academical term, but as I try to convey, it robs SOM of its "M" rank
> and thereby degrades it to a sub-set of its own. Some people show
> their inability to pull themselves by hair or bootstraps out of SOM by
> not seeing this "transformation". To move from Newton physics to
> Einstein's needs a set of equations called Lorenz Transformation, the
> SOL is such a procedure from SOM to MOQ.
>
> IMO
>
> Bodvar
>
>
>
>
> 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/
>