[MD] Tuukka's letter to Robert Pirsig

[Tuukka Virtaperko]

Ant,
>
>
> Ant
> McWatt comments:  Tukkaa, I’ve read your
> letter that you posted at MOQ Discuss on March 27th and, amongst all
> the obscure Ptolemaic thinking, can’t see where you’ve unified the two distinct
> metaphysical frameworks found in ZMM and LILA.

Tuukka:
What do you mean by Ptolemaic? Obsolete?

This is the MOQ in ZAMM: http://moq.fi/ZAMM-1.png

Here I split romantic quality into two patterns: 
http://moq.fi/ZAMM-add-1.png

This is the MOQ in LILA. It is only about objective quality: 
http://moq.fi/LILA-1.png

Here is my theory SOQ: http://moq.fi/RP-1.png

Subjective quality (the blue box), which was present in ZAMM, is absent 
in LILA. Pirsig seems to have missed, that subjective value patterns 
require subjective descriptions, and objective value patterns require 
objective description. RMP says in SODV, that the social pattern would 
be subjective, but all descriptions of the social pattern, that he 
presents in LILA, are objective. What is subjective in that kind of 
social quality? Same goes for intellectual quality.

>
>
> Ant:
>
> Pirsig
> cites the example of an American Indian going out on a Vision Quest in Chapter
> 9 of LILA as being outside classic and romantic aspects of the universe.  So, firstly, I am wondering how you’d address
> this issue?

Tuukka:
What is the issue, exactly? In SOQ, the classical-romantic -split is 
agreed to be smaller in scope than the Dynamic-static -split. Being 
outside the classic-romantic -split is possible within the context of 
LILA's MOQ. It's not possible in ZAMM's MOQ, because that theory does 
not include Dynamic Quality, and therefore has a smaller scope.

Because the SOQ includes both ZAMM's MOQ and LILA's MOQ, it can explain 
the behavior of the American Indian as well as LILA's MOQ can. The 
conceptual scope of SOQ is the same as the scope of LILA, but it has 
more content which is more clearly expressed. In SOQ, both classical and 
romantic quality are forms of static quality. There is nothing in ZAMM, 
to my knowledge, that would not permit this.

> Ant:
> Secondly, you seem to missing a few logical steps in that letter.  For instance, what does "nonrelativizably" mean in that phrase "nonrelativizably used predicate"?  I only ask as part of F.S.C. Northrop's problem in being understood in the Academy (let alone by the wider public) is that his metaphysical structures became (relatively) very intricate, large and unwieldy.  For instance, check out his text "The Logic of the Science and Humanities" and his diagrams of all these concepts by inspection, intuition, postulation, etc.  It's not for the faint hearted!

Tuukka:
I do. I had to simplify the letter a bit. Here is a definition of 
"nonrelativizably used predicate" that you were asking for: 
http://www.todellisuudenomistaja.net/suhteutuvuus-ja-sen-seurauksia/#comment-802

The definition is not yet completely translated, but if you understand 
the kind of language used in the text, you will get an idea of what it's 
about.

Best wishes
Tuukka