[MD] A problem with the MOQ.

[Tuukka Virtaperko]

Ant, David, all


> Hi Ant and all,
>
> Ant wrote:
>
> "Anyway, maybe the most interesting question that now arises is that
> while Pirsig was fortunate to stumble on the problem of defining value
> as his metaphysical starting point, what has his metaphysics (i.e. the
> MOQ) not taken account of properly?  "

> David wrote:
> That's a rather curious question Ant. Do you think that Pirsig has
> missed something? I think the best question the MOQ poses is "How can
> I make things better with it?" There's so much clarity to be found
> from it and so much potential there! I think the MOQ has the potential
> to do unspeakably amazing things for the planet. I'm starting with my
> own life and am going to work out from there.. What do you think?
>
> -David


Tuukka:

The question is indeed curious, as MOQ is just one theory, and cannot be 
expected to account for more that it's intended to. The MOQ seems to 
have numerous applications in solving philosophical problems, such as 
the problem of induction, but I would not view these applications as 
existing before they have been explicitly expressed. As this application 
is does not yet exist, Pirsig's MOQ may be deemed to not account for the 
problem of induction as it is, but could provide a foundation for the 
solution.

I am more interested of the internal consistency of the MOQ. In ZAMM, 
Pirsig uses mythos and logos to illustrate subjective and objective 
quality, respectively:

"The term logos, the root word of "logic," refers to the sum total of 
our rational understanding of the world. Mythos is the sum total of the 
early historic and prehistoric myths which preceded the logos. The 
mythos includes not only the Greek myths but the Old Testament, the 
Vedic Hymns and the early legends of all cultures which have contributed 
to our present world understanding. The mythos-over-logos argument 
states that our rationality is shaped by these legends, that our 
knowledge today is in relation to these legends as a tree is in relation 
to the little shrub it once was. One can gain great insights into the 
complex overall structure of the tree by studying the much simpler shape 
of the shrub. There's no difference in kind or even difference in 
identity, only a difference in size."

[...]

"The mythos-over-logos argument points to the fact that each child is 
born as ignorant as any caveman. What keeps the world from reverting to 
the Neanderthal with each generation is the continuing, ongoing mythos, 
transformed into logos but still mythos, the huge body of common 
knowledge that unites our minds as cells are united in the body of man. 
To feel that one is not so united, that one can accept or discard this 
mythos as one pleases, is not to understand what the mythos is."

If logos (objective quality) is like a tree, and mythos (subjective 
quality) is like a little shrub the tree once was, objective quality 
should emerge from subjective quality. But later, Pirsig published the 
SODV paper, in which he makes a contrary statement: that subjective 
quality (social, intellectual) emerges from objective quality 
(inorganic, biological).

In his commentary on Frederick Copleston 
(http://robertpirsig.org/Copleston.htm) Pirsig uses the SODV 
interpretation in the first paragraph: "In the MOQ the term, 
"objective," is reserved for inorganic and biological patterns and 
cannot include "idealism." But later in the same text, he says: 
"Objective reality is the most valued intellectual construction."

What does it mean to say, that inorganic and biological quality (= 
"objective reality") are the most valued intellectual construction, if 
social and intellectual quality (= "subjective quality") are more valuable?

Best,
Tuukka