[MD] The Analytic Metaphysics of Quality

[david]

________________________________
From: Moq_Discuss <moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org> on behalf of mail at tuukkavirtaperko.net <mail at tuukkavirtaperko.net>
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 6:04 AM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: [MD] The Analytic Metaphysics of Quality

Tuukka said:

The development of my own theory, the Analytic Metaphysics of Quality, began when I realized a logically elegant possibility in which the subject matter of ZAMM and
LILA could be combined into a coherent whole that is a single theory.



dmb says:

There is no need to combine the subject matter of ZAMM and LILA because they already form a coherent whole. LILA is an extension and elaboration of ZAMM. I can see from this starting point (and from the other things you say in the explanation that follows) that your theory is predicated on a lack of understanding. For example:



Tuukka said:

Since Pirsig's theory of static value patterns is a variant of emergent materialism and LILA subscribes to empiricism, I assumed that the theory of static value patterns of LILA is a theory of the objective quality of ZAMM.



dmb says:

The MOQ rejects the metaphysics of substance and materialism is the prime example of that rejected metaphysics. Radical empiricism says that reality is made of experience, not any kind of substance. It's a kind of process philosophy. The MOQ's evolutionary hierarchy is all about values so that experience goes all the way down even to the inorganic level of values. This is sometimes called panexperientialism. In any case, the MOQ is certainly not a variant of emergent materialism and LILA is certainly not a theory of objective quality, whatever that is.


Tuukka said:
Since neither romantic nor classical quality seem to be Dynamic Quality I assumed they're static quality. I proceeded to assume that each static level of LILA has a romantic subset and a classical subset.


dmb says:

This is also no where near the truth. Romantic and Classic are styles of thought, temperaments of mind. In philosophy the romantic temperament is idealism, rationalism, and often religious (like Plato or Hegel) and the classic mind is empirical and interested in the many rather than the one (like Aristotle or Hume). These categories are qualities of mind and so they simply don't apply to the first two levels of value.


I could make many, many more corrections but that doesn't sound like much fun. Let's just say you're quite mistaken about every key term you've put to use. I don't know what you're talking about but it sure isn't the MOQ. I don't see any understanding of Pirsig's work in your comments.





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
MOQ Online - MOQ_Discuss<http://moq.org/md/archives.html>
moq.org
Robert M. Pirsig's MoQ deals with the fundamentals of existence and provides a more coherent system for understanding reality than our current paradigms allow