[MD] The Role of Evolution, Time and Order in Pirsig's "Metaphysics of

[MarshaV]

At 02:46 AM 2/9/2009, you wrote:
>MD
>
>Marsha has read McWatt's paper and is impressed.
>
>Excerpt from the paper:
>
>     "Therefore, for Pirsig, immediate experience (or Quality) is
>     experience where there is no distinction between what is
>     experienced and the act of experiencing itself."
>
>OK, the  basic argument in ZAMM is a pre-existing reality before the
>subject becomes aware of the objective world. Thus the pre-
>something (now called Quality) must necessarily be the DQ that
>spawns static qualities. In the first sketch the static part was  just the
>S/O (called "intellect"). The mystery is the why postulate that DQ
>spawns the MOQ and remains unscathed outside of metaphysics.
>
>     Quality is the changing flux of reality that logically comes
>     before any conceptual distinctions such as subjects and
>     objects are made. The concepts of subject and object are
>     commonly confused with the essence of reality because they
>     have become such a common apparatus for describing,
>     understanding and analysing that reality.
>
>"Before language" is valid in the MOQ where the basic distinction is
>Dynamic/Static and where language can be a static social pattern, but
>not in the SOM where the basic distinction (in this case) is
>language/reality. SOM's paradox-creating nature immediately shows
>that nothing can be before language. Anthony obviously spots the
>flaw, but merely reinforces it.
>
>     This is not to say conceptualisation in itself is a problem (for
>     the MOQ is a set of concepts) but the confusion of concepts
>     for reality itself is.
>
>Conceptualisation is very much a problem in the language/reality
>variety of SOM that Pirsig suddenly wants the MOQ to be subordinate
>to .....shown in the Quality/MOQ super- metaphysics. What medium
>did Pirsig use to show that there is a Quality outside/before language?
>
>Either I have fallen off my rocking chair or ..?


Greetings Bo,

And how else would RMP explain the MoQ than by using a language we 
conventional share?  How does your explanation, the SOL explanation 
demonstrate meta-MoQ perspective without the use of a conventionally 
shared language?  Honestly, I just don't see your major 
problem.   Please explain this devastating paradox and why it 
destroys MOQ.  Then please explain how your SOL version rectifies the 
problem.  I really am trying to understand.  I just don't get why it 
should knock you off your rocker.


Marsha

p.s.  Ron if you can explain Bo's problem to me in simple language I 
would appreciate the help.  I really don't get it.









.
_____________

Shoot for the moon.  Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.........
.
.