[MD] The Quality/MOQ dichotomy

[MarshaV]

At 01:14 AM 2/20/2009, you wrote:

>On Feb 18, 2009, at 3:28:28 AM, MarshaV <marshalz at charter.net> wrote:
>Hmmm. If I'm correct, and science is in the room, let me add a word or two.
>
>The MoQ, for me, is a world-view to which science is
>subordinate. Science is a subject/object subset of the MoQ
>world-view and cannot be used to evaluate or explain it
>
>I am new to this post so treat this accordingly.  I have seen the 
>term "science" used as though it were somehow different from what is 
>being discussed in metaphysics.  I have a doctorate of PHILOSOPHY, 
>specializing in the biological sciences.  Recently I have become 
>interested in the science of metaphysics.  I have always been a fan 
>of Pirsig for the entertainment he has provided me (and I mean that 
>with the highest regard), and read the archives of MoQ with enjoyment.
>
>The "science" you appear to be talking about is that which appears 
>to be described by the abstract concept of measurement.  That 
>"science" is the labeling and categorization of experiences in a way 
>to provide meaning that can be communicated (shared) in a group 
>setting.  It is no different from the metaphysics of MoQ, which does 
>the same thing.  Both are as real or subjective as each other.  The 
>"hard sciences" have been able to continually create new labels 
>(names) for experiences more successfully than metaphysics.  It is 
>possible that discussions in metaphysics will evolve to a much 
>better language, such as sanskrit, with the creation of new terms, 
>in order to break out of the limited communication, for such 
>experiences, provided by English.  It would be nice to not be 
>talking around the subject as much.
>
>Speaking of evolving, a good example of the use of "science" in 
>metaphysics can be seen with Pirsig's use of the term 
>evolution.  Evolution was a theory from the 19th century which was 
>used to describe the dynamic interaction of structural biology with 
>the "environment",  which really is a description of nature dancing 
>with itself.  This concept has been expanded to depict a perceived 
>directional movement from "lower" to "higher" (or better quality), 
>resulting in many sociological justifications for behavior, among 
>other misuses .  Stretching this term in such a way causes it to 
>lose meaning, and deliver a poorly defined concept..  However, if 
>the theory of evolution is applied to metaphysics, for whatever 
>reason, it implies that it is testable, meaning reproducible and of 
>some predictability.  If such scrutiny is deemed not applicable to 
>metaphysics, then a different term should be used.  If evolution is 
>used to describe the movement of simple to complex then we are 
>talking about an observation which has no real meaning.

Nature dancing with herself?  This sounds good.




>Labeling and categorization, in any field, for the purposes of 
>sharing experiences with a group consciousness, is simply just that, 
>which is my interpretation of how Pirsig views language.  Such is 
>the language of science which is no different from the language of 
>metaphysics.

>I certainly do not feel that one is more "real" than the other.

And, ultimately, neither do I.

"While sustaining biological and social patterns
  Kill all intellectual patterns.
  Kill them completely
  And then follow Dynamic Quality
  And morality will be served."
      (LILA, Chapter 32)


But I do think questions of the metaphysical kind are hot.    - Marsha


>WillBlake2

"A fool sees not the same tree that a wise man sees."
             (William Blake)


Nice to meet you WillBlake2.


Marsha





.
_____________

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