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

[Dan Glover]

Tuk, all,

On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 10:02 AM, Tuukka Virtaperko
<mail at tuukkavirtaperko.net> wrote:
> Dan,
>
>
> On 21-Oct-16 6:24, Dan Glover wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
>
> Tuukka:
> Well, I have it right here. However, it seems I can reply to some things you
> wrote before having studied that work again.
>
>
>>
>>> 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.
>
>
>
> Tuukka:
> The issue I am trying to raise is not: "Did Robert Pirsig respond to
> specific contexts in LC annotation 67?"
>
>
>>
>>> 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.
>
>
>
> Tuukka:
>
> I didn't imply your citations would've stated what I stated. I meant to
> uncover the logical consequences of LC RMP annotation 67 as follows. The
> annotation includes the statement:
>
> "The MOQ says that Quality comes first, which produces ideas, which produce
> what we know as matter."
>
> This is a metaphysical statement. To be more exact, it is an ontological
> statement that is equivalent to idealism insofar as we're using defined
> concepts.

Dan:
I tend to disagree. Idealism is loosely defined as:

Philosophy.
any system or theory that maintains that the real is of the nature of
thought or that the object of external perception consists of ideas.

Note how Quality comes first, and then ideas.

>
> "The scientific community that has produced Complementarity, almost
> invariably presumes that matter comes first and produces ideas."
>
> This presumption typically made by the scientific community is another
> ontological statement. It is called materialism.
>
> "However, as if to further the confusion, the MOQ says that the idea that
> matter comes first is a high quality idea!"
>
> According to this statement, materialism is moral (ie. is a high quality
> idea). Materialism is inconsistent with idealism.

Dan:
Not under the umbrella of the MOQ.

> Consequently, either
> idealism is immoral or inconsistency is moral. Inconsistency isn't moral. If
> idealism is an immoral ontological thought and the MOQ is idealistic insofar
> as we're using defined concepts, then the MOQ is ontologically immoral
> insofar as we're using defined concepts.

Dan:
By using the framework of the MOQ to unite idealism and materialism
this inconsistency does not arise.

>
> "I think Bohr would say that philosophic idealism (i.e. ideas before matter)
> is a viable philosophy since complementarity allows multiple contradictory
> views to coexist."
>
> Viability, coexistence and complementarity do not mean that idealism and
> materialism are consistent with each other.

Dan:
So you are taking the ideas of viability, coexistence, and
complementarity as meaningless?

>
>
>
>
>>
>>> 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?
>
>
>
> Tuukka:
> It is completely unintentional. I am merely following premises to their
> logical conclusion while assuming that if this would uncover a logical
> defect in the MOQ it'd be obvious that I'm not willfully causing the defect
> but exposing a defect that was already there.

Dan:
Fair enough. I of course cannot answer for Robert Pirsig. I can only
offer up my understanding of the MOQ.

>
>
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>
>
> Tuukka:
>
> According to LILA, the primary split of the MOQ is dynamic/static. If static
> quality is split into subjects and objects, that's secondary, not primary.

Dan:
Static quality is not split into subjects and objects. Static quality
is split into four levels.

>
> It's important to remember that the definition of static quality and the
> theory of static value patterns are two different things.

Dan:
How so?

>
> If Pirsig's theory of static value patterns is objective it doesn't follow
> that static patterns of value are inherently objective.

Dan:
I am not sure I understand you here.

>
> Can you find some other reason to consider this a problem?

Dan:
Well, yeah. Otherwise I wouldn't take my time to answer you. I think
this primary focus on subject and object is detrimental to an
understanding a proper understanding of the MOQ.

Thank you,

Dan


http://www.danglover.com