[MD] A realist MOQ

[david buchanan]

Ian said to dmb:
(1) DavidM is warning against the rejection of realism BECAUSE you accused him by name (in a thread not actually involving him) of "arguing in favor of subjects experiencing objective reality". Simply clarifying that it's the primacy of subjects and objects we're (ALL) rejecting - NOT reality.


dmb says:
Right, I named several people who all seem to be making the same mistake, which is nothing less than a failure to understand the rejection of SOM. If you've been following along, then you should know that Arlo and I have both tried to show that David M is using the MOQ's terms but he's really just talking about SOM. That's what this realism business is really all about. As he and many others misconstrue it, "static patterns" are just a new name for SOM's independent, objective reality. I'm still quite convinced that this basic first move is where most people fall down.


Ian said to dmb:
We're (ALL) arguing for a MoQish REALITY - and thereby rejecting the dangers of a post-modern, solipsistic, subjective idealism.


dmb says:
It's not about loyalty or fondness, Ian. It's about comprehension. As far as the dangers of postmodern, solipsistic, subjective idealism go, like I just said, "I do not think that, did not say that, and I don't see how that could follow from anything I said". Those concerns are baseless, are the product of some wild inferences by David Morey based on his own misunderstanding. 

He shows this with his contradictory phrase "pre-conceptual pattens", for example. He's attempted to construe static patterns as if they were pre-existing independent realities which we may or may not then perceive and conceptualize. This mistake doesn't take the MOQ on board at all. There is no real conceptual shift away from SOM but just a re-naming the same old objective realities from SOM. The problematic metaphysical assumptions remain unchanged.


Ian said to dmb:
(2) Those annotations are fine for what there were (in context as responses to specific statements) but they are not comprehensively definitive in their own right. Annotation 4 hedges its bets with the pragmatic "whenever practical" qualifier. Annotation 67 involves a great deal of short-hand and even admits it contributes to the confusion. Annotation 97 doesn't seem relevant to the current debate - but includes a topic we should return to - namely "social evaluation".


dmb says:
What!? You don't see how those quotes are relevant to David Morey's love of realism and pre-existing realities? Wow. I think they answer his concerns quite directly and neatly. Pirsig even tells us that getting this very point, "is important for an understanding of the MOQ"!  This is exactly what I'm trying to get DMorey (and you) to see: "that although 'common sense' dictates that inorganic nature came first (pre-existing objective reality), actually 'common sense' which is a set of ideas, has to come first." Like I said, it's about comprehension and some people just don't get it. All three of the quotes make the same point. It's a good and useful idea in many situations, but don't reify it. Don't forget that it's just an idea. Don't mistake for the starting point of reality or the anchor of all truths, or whatever. The idea was, after all, derived from experience in the first. 


"It is important for an understanding of the MOQ to see that although 'common sense' dictates that inorganic nature came first, actually 'common sense' which is a set of ideas, has to come first."

"The MOQ says that Quality comes first, which produces ideas, which produce what we know as matter. [but] ...the MOQ says that the idea that matter comes first is a high quality idea!" 

"The MOQ does not deny the traditional scientific view of reality as composed of material substance and independent of us.  It says it is an extremely high quality idea.  We should follow it whenever it is practical to do so.  But the MOQ, like philosophic idealism, says this scientific view of reality is still an idea."

A fuller explanation of "the anti-SOM revolution" can be found in the opening post in that thread title.