[MD] Why does Pirsig write everybody's right about mind and matter although his theses imply the opposite?

[Dan Glover]

Tuk, all,

On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 6:40 AM, Tuukka Virtaperko
<mail at tuukkavirtaperko.net> wrote:
> Dan,
>
> okay, looks like I should've studied Lila's Child better. However, if it's
> true that "matter comes before mind" and "mind comes before matter" then the
> MOQ is inconsistent. Obviously, the MOQ is not intended to be inconsistent.
> Furthermore, resorting to a notion of "complementarity" doesn't make the MOQ
> consistent.

Dan:
You are right. You should study Lila's Child better.

>
> In order to make the MOQ consistent, the statements "matter comes before
> mind" and "mind comes before matter" must be assigned to different contexts.
> In the citations you provided, Pirsig seems to make a rudimentary such
> assignment by implying that ontologically and/or epistemologically mind
> comes before matter whereas morally matter comes before mind.

Dan:
I can't copy and paste the entire book but obviously Robert Pirsig is
responding to specific contexts.

>
> But if it's moral to believe matter to come before mind it cannot be moral
> to also believe mind to come before matter unless it's moral to be
> inconsistent. And scientists are highly unlikely to find it moral to be
> inconsistent.

Dan:
This isn't what the citations I offered stated.

>
> Therefore Pirsig's rudimentary context assignment implies that the MOQ is
> ontologically and/or epistemologically bad philosophy. Why would he
> intentionally imply that? The implication seems unintentional.

Dan:
Your interpretation twists the ideas that Pirsig is offering up in
ways that do indeed make the MOQ bad philosophy. Why would you
intentionally do that? Or is it unintentional?

>
> A more appropriate context assignment would seem to be: "Subjectively mind
> comes before matter but objectively matter comes before mind." However, this
> implies that Pirsig's theory of static value patterns is objective. Is that
> a problem?

Dan:
As dmb pointed out, subjective and objective are meant to simplify the
MOQ, not complicate it. It is okay to use those terms as long as we
remember they represent patterns of value. So yes, this is a problem,
since you seem to be pointing to subjects and objects as primary.

Thank you,
Dan

http://www.danglover.com