[MD] Thus spoke Lila

[Horse]

Hi Ham

'=' in the sense that Quality = Reality is saying that they are the same 
thing.
If I refer to Venus, the Morning Star or the Evening Star by saying 
Venus = Morning Star = Evening Star, I'm not saying there is an 
equivalence, I'm saying that they are exactly identical. The only 
difference is the form of the linguistic label. There is no difference 
in their value.

Horse

On 08/12/2010 06:47, Ham Priday wrote:
>
> 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
> 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/md/archives.html
>

-- 

"Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid."
— Frank Zappa