[MD] Metaphysics: what it is good for?

[Jan Anders Andersson]

Howdy All


17 jan 2013 kl. 04.26 skrev Dan Glover:

> Hello everyone
> 
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 9:08 PM, X Acto <xacto at rocketmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> In the thread titled "Is experience just DQ?" (on 1/13/13) David Harding wrote:
>>> The MOQ is obviously a Metaphysics.  What is Metaphysics for? To me, it is an intellectual construct which, depending on its quality, can help us to live better lives.  It does this by providing a context for *every* thing.  With a good metaphysics like the MOQ we can compare any two things and use it to help us determine which is better.  Making quality decisions like this help us to become better people.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> dmb says:
>>> How does the narrator of ZAMM put it? Metaphysics is fine if it improves everyday life, otherwise forget it.
>>> Yes, the Metaphysics of Quality is an intellectual construct (sq), a coherent set of concepts and definitions. And yet the MOQ is built around immediate experience itself (DQ), which is pre-conceptual and undefinable. Even further, this primary empirical reality (DQ) is given priority over the conceptual (sq).
>> 
>> Dan:
>> Exactly. This relates directly to the core of our (David H. and my)
>> disagreement. How is Dynamic Quality given priority over our
>> conceptual world? By seeing Dynamic Quality and experience as
>> synonymous. We use qualifiers like 'primary' and 'empirical' to modify
>> the term 'experience' but once this primacy of experience is
>> understood (in relation to the MOQ) it is no longer necessary do so.
>> Dynamic Quality is experience. All that which comes after is static
>> quality.
>> 
>> Ron:
>> The source of the disagreement is that while Dave B. and Dave H. are placing emphasis
>> on the qualifier "immediate" in relation to the term experience as a clarification of just what
>> is meant by the term Dynamic, Dan is using the term "experience" in a more broad general way
>> as to imply the exclusion of the term "static" in association with "experience".
> 
> Dan:
> Well, I can't take the credit for that. Robert Pirsig is the one who
> stated that in the MOQ, Dynamic Quality and experience become
> synonymous. I provided textual support for this, as  you know. I am
> using the term 'experience' as it pertains to the MOQ, which I made
> quite clear.
> 
>> 
>> And that is quite a difference.
> 
> Dan:
> It changes everything; so yes, I agree it is quite a difference.

Just some days ago I used the mirror as a metaphor for the concept of consciousness and Metaphysics. A truth, a pragmatically working truth, is about the same, as long as it is representing the "reality". A true road map for example is showing what roads one can choose to come to the target of desire.

Without a mirror or a map you can just walk on and hope for the best, most people walk in circles (SQ). That is the difference from being conscious about something or not.

There is another difference too. A map is showing a static pattern, a static truth of the region while a conceptual mirror is directly responding to the surrounding (DQ) and constantly updated. Still it can be a funhouse mirror, so take care. This difference is time related. The conceptual mirror shows the actual state, where you are (SQ), while the map is helping you to plan the next step, how to act best, (true DQ), in the near future. If you step into the ditch and wet your shoe, you must learn from the experience.....

Jan Anders


> 
> http://www.danglover.com
> 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