[MD] Reductionism

[MarshaV]

At 02:44 PM 6/23/2009, you wrote:

>Marsha, Platt [Ron mentioned] --
>
>
>[Marsha]:
>>Reductionism:  "Everything in the Universe can be understood in terms
>>of quarks and leptons."
>
>[Platt]:
>>Nicely summarized. Ask a reductionist "Where do quarks and leptons
>>come from?" you'll get a blank stare or from an honest reductionist the
>>reply, "Don't ask."
>
>Quarks and leptons notwithstanding, the universe is understood in 
>terms of subjects and objects.  This has nothing to do with 
>theoretical physics or scientific principles.  It's an empirical 
>truth that we know from experience.  Just because we don't know 
>precisely what objects are or what the nature of "selfness" is 
>doesn't mean they don't exist or that they must be "explained away" 
>in order for us to be "enlightened".  That's no philosophical 
>breakthrough; it's just plain foolishness.
>
>If we insist on being reductionists, we need to acknowledge that 
>fundamental division of existence beyond which all else is 
>speculation.  Although Descartes is no longer fashionable among the 
>elitists, his Cogito stands as a lasting reminder that existence is 
>an experiential duality.
>
>Ron recently quoted LILA to reveal Phaedrus's train of thought on this issue:
>
>"But he realized that sooner or later he was going to have to stop 
>carping about how bad subject-object metaphysics was and say 
>something positive for a change. Sooner or later he was going to 
>have to come up with a way of dividing Quality that was better than 
>subjects and objects. He would have to do that or get out of 
>metaphysics entirely. It's all right to condemn somebody else's bad 
>metaphysics but you can't replace it with a metaphysics that 
>consists of just one word."
>
>The problem with this line of reasoning is that metaphysics is not 
>just "words" (one or many) but concepts explained by words.  Pirsig 
>tried to make the seven-letter word Quality a metaphysical concept, 
>which it cannot be without an ontology to support it.  So, "to come 
>up with a way of dividing Quality that was better than subjects and 
>objects," he substituted the adjectives "static" and 
>"dynamic".   Then, under the influence of native-American culture 
>supplemented with a little peyote, he had an epiphany of sorts.
>
>"To cling to Dynamic Quality alone apart from any static patterns is 
>to cling to chaos. He saw that much can be learned about Dynamic 
>Quality by studying what it is not rather than futilely trying to 
>define what it is. Static quality patterns are dead when they are 
>exclusive, when they demand blind obedience and suppress Dynamic 
>change. But static patterns, nevertheless, provide a necessary 
>stabilizing force to protect Dynamic progress from degeneration. 
>Although Dynamic Quality, the Quality of freedom, creates this world 
>in which we live, these patterns of static quality, the quality of 
>order, preserve our world. Neither static nor Dynamic Quality can 
>survive without the other."
>
>The "chaos" he attributed to "Dynamic Quality alone" may have been a 
>result of his altered state of mind, as there is no logic to support 
>the view that a primary source is chaotic in the absence of 
>patterns.  On the contrary, a pure source -- Quality, Value, or 
>Essence -- has no disparate elements but is homogeneous, whereas 
>chaos is defined as "a confused heterogeneous 
>agglomeration."  Obviously, Phaedrus's focus was limited to what was 
>"inside the box"  (experiential patterns) rather than the primary 
>source or nature of the box.  In fact, the MoQ thesis never 
>transcends the physical universe. It is a hierarchical ontology 
>based on a euphemistic or "romantic" notion of Quality.  As such the 
>MoQ falls seriously short of what classical philosophers would 
>regard as a metaphysics.
>
>Whether physical existence is ultimately "real" or not, the S/O 
>split is the fundamental reality of existence.  We can't make a 
>metaphysics out of objective reality any more than we can impart 
>Quality to it.  What is sadly missing in Pirsig's philosophy is the 
>sensible agent, without which neither quality nor value can be realized.
>
>Thanks for your time and, hopefully, your understanding,
>Ham


Ham,

I haven't the slightest idea what you want.  Who cares what 
"classical philosophers" regard as metaphysics?  What good does it do 
to look backwards?  The MOQ is a synthesis of Eastern wisdom and 
Western intellect.  Dynamic Quality is Ultimate Reality, static 
quality is conventional reality.  Quarks and leptons are static 
patterns of value within conventional reality.  I'm sure you 
understand the difference between an independent TiTs and patterns.

An individual can directly experience Dynamic Quality, but cannot 
know it.  Static quality (conventional reality), made up of static 
patterns of value, can be known only by conceptually constructing the 
knowledge and not by direct experience.  Thinking subjects and 
objects are fundamental reality is an illusion.  As far as I 
understand it, RMP denied an independent self, not the individual.

I do not consider Dynamic Quality chaos in any sense, but I have not 
had Mr. Pirsig's experiences and cannot know what he meant when he 
used the term.

Marsha





_____________

"He who neglects the present moment throws away all he has."
   (Friedrich von Schiller)