[MD] The Heinous Quadrilemma

[John Carl]

Tuk,

Whenever we ask whether any idea is good or not, we must take into account
the historical context - thus both materialism and idealism are good ideas
in that they were good ideas at the time.  Labels have connotations that
evolve, therefore getting hung up on labels is a bad idea and you have to
have a feel for the the "thing" that the label represents.  It doesn't
matter what you name the notes, if the music is good.

John

On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 9:40 AM, Tuukka Virtaperko <
mail at tuukkavirtaperko.net> wrote:

> All,
>
> Due to the argument below, you have four options:
>
> * To concede that the MOQ isn't consistent.
> * To concede that the MOQ isn't a good idea.
> * To concede that the MOQ doesn't solve the mind-matter problem.
> * To modify the MOQ.
>
> I recommend modification.
>
> Regards,
>
> Tuk
>
>
>
>
> On 22-Oct-16 18:34, Tuukka Virtaperko wrote:
>
>> Dan, all,
>>
>> I wish to provide maximum clarity for my argument. The argument is about
>> the logical consistency and logical implications of LC RMP annotation 67.
>> The annotation includes the following statement:
>>
>> MOQ idealism: "The MOQ says that Quality comes first, which produces
>> ideas, which produce what we know as matter."
>>
>> The concept of Quality is undefined. The notions of logical consistency
>> and logical implications can only be applied to defined concepts. They
>> cannot be applied to the concept of Quality. Therefore, even though MOQ
>> idealism includes the concept of Quality, the notion of MOQ idealism is
>> logically equivalent to the ordinary notion of idealism.
>>
>> MOQ materialism: "However, as if to further the confusion, the MOQ says
>> that the idea that matter comes first is a high quality idea!"
>>
>> The MOQ classifies materialism as a good idea. But this implies that the
>> MOQ cannot classify idealism as a good idea unless the MOQ is either
>> inconsistent or not a single metaphysics.
>>
>> If the MOQ is inconsistent it doesn't solve any metaphysical problem. So
>> we shall assume that the MOQ is consistent.
>>
>> If the MOQ isn't a single metaphysics it doesn't solve the mind-matter
>> problem but instead merely reports that the problem exists. However, Pirsig
>> thinks the MOQ solves the mind-matter problem. If this is true, the MOQ is
>> a single metaphysics. So we shall assume that the MOQ is a single
>> metaphysics.
>>
>> Therefore, idealism must belong to the context of not-good ideas.
>>
>> But the MOQ subscribes to idealism.
>>
>> Therefore, the MOQ is not a good idea.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Tuk
>>
>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
> 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
>



-- 
"finite players
play within boundaries.
Infinite players
play *with* boundaries."