[MD] Reductionism

[Steve Peterson]

Hi Bo, DMB,

On Jul 5, 2009, at 3:48 AM, skutvik at online.no wrote:

> Dear David.
>
> 3 July you said:.
>
>> One doesn't need to "deduce" the discrepancy between concepts and
>> reality from the DQ/sq distinction because that distinction and the
>> discrepancy are exactly the same thing. Concepts are static
>> intellectual patterns and reality is Dynamic Quality.
>
Bo said:
> You seem oblivious to the fact that the first DQ/SQ distinction is the
> inorganic one and its perception of value is not by concepts nor is  
> the
> biological, only with the social level and language did concepts enter
> the scene, but only with intellect did the the reality/concept  
> distinction
> occur. Your resistance shows how immensely strong intellect's ties are
> - they want to dominate the scene - but these must be torn if one  
> is to
> enter Quality's meta-level.


Steve:

I think Pirsig disagrees and favors DMB's interpretation of the MOQ:

LC annotation 60. "This is difficult to untangle...The difference is  
rooted in the historic chicken-and-egg controversy over whether  
matter came first and produces ideas, or ideas come
first and produce what we know as matter. The MOQ says that Quality  
comes first which
produces ideas which produce what we know as matter. The scientific  
community that
has produced Complementarity, almost invariably presumes that matter  
comes first and
produces ideas. However, as if to further the confusion, the MOQ says  
that the idea that matter comes first is a high quality idea! ..."


DMB, I've enjoyed reading your stuff of late. All that book learnin'  
is doing you good.

Best,
Steve