[MD] Reductionism

[MarshaV]

Ham,

I tried the best I could to understand what you were after.   It 
would be very helpful if you could ask your questions more directly.


Marsha





At 03:57 PM 6/23/2009, you wrote:
>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)
>
>
>
>
>
>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/


_____________

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