[MD] Thus spoke Lila

[Ham Priday]

Hi Horse --

On Sunday 12/5/10, 2:06 PM, you said to Marsha:

> The MoQ is a metaphysics and is definable. Quality is not definable. So if 
> Reality = Quality
> then Reality is not definable either.  So to say that MoQ = Reality means 
> that there is a
> huge contradiction - i.e. it's a mistake.
> So MoQ cannot be Reality.

I agree that the name of an intellectual pursuit is not the same identity as 
the body of knowledge it refers to, just as the title of a novel is not the 
same as the story recounted in the book.  However, your response to Marsha 
leaves Pirsig's "equivalency postulate" hanging in limbo.  Not to exacerbate 
this issue, but by way of clarifying it, let me paraphrase your argument 
with a similar one drawn from the objective sciences.

Cosmology is a science which defines Reality as the Cosmos.  The MoQ is a 
metaphysics which equates Reality to Quality.  So if Reality = Quality, does 
it also equal the Cosmos?  Or are the cosmologists mistaken?

Equivalence means: 1) equal or interchangeable in value, quantity, 
significance, etc.; 2) having the same or a similar effect or meaning.  By 
these criteria, I submit that equating something called X with something 
called Y is "defining" it.

Two questions:
If you do not accept equivalency as definitive, by what logic does Mr. Prsig 
equate two indefinable things?
And, if metaphysics is definable, how can the equation Reality = Quality be 
a metaphysical postulate?

The truth of the matter is that what is not experiencable to human beings is 
indefinable.  Therefore, attempts to define ultimate Reality as a 
qualitative abstraction, such as Being, Consciousness, Energy, Value, or 
Goodness are no more valid than equating it to a known physical entity. 
Nicholas of Cusa in the 15th century came up with the principle of the 
'Not-other', which is arguably the best working definition possible for 
metaphysical reality.

Essentially speaking,
Ham