[MF] Where is metaphysics in the MOQ?

[Steve Mack]

Kevin; 

 

I read with great interest YOUR interpretation of my metaphor – I like it.  As I’d previously surmised, one can ‘attach’ whichever components they choose to ‘pair up’ TO the three pairs of helix, be they scientifically, linguistically or otherwise based…’All roads lead to the same point’.  That is why I have not even contemplated in great depth, WHICH category of variables would make ‘the best’ combination, as there IS no ‘best’, in this scenario…

 

The junction at which all helixes meet in my definition, is in itself a self-perpetuating spiral; like a never-ending ‘round-a-bout’ with eternal traffic circumnavigating it.

 

If we set about it another way, we could even expand on the triple helix and have many more individual helixes all meeting at a common point and in the end, the same spiral would be encountered…There would be no balance of power WINABLE ‘wars’, as the core of the spiral would be equidistant to all influences. 

 

Perhaps the mass that IS the ‘spiral’, is in itself ‘quality’?

 

I haven’t actually read Robert Pirsigs’ Lila as yet, but as for ‘Quality’ in [‘Zen…’] I know ‘Phaedrus’ spent the vast majority of the book searching for it and never really DID find a pure, stable absolute for it [he just went insane instead!]

 

Steve Mack

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Kevin Perez 
  To: moq_focus at moqtalk.org 
  Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2006 3:02 AM
  Subject: [MF] Where is metaphysics in the MOQ?


  Steve, Matt,
    
  May I chime in?
    
  Steve, that's an interesting metaphor, your triple helix of pairs.  I see in it
  knowledge, language and wisdom.  I see knowledge as metaphysics/what
  is "unknown," language as rhetoric/linguistics and wisdom as mysticism/what
  is "known."  And I take knowledge to mean that which arises from experience
  but that is limited to the capacity of the brain.  And I take language to mean
  that which finds expression in thought, word or deed.  And I take wisdom to
  mean that which arises from experience but which is essentially limitless
  because it is not restricted to the capacity of the brain.
    
  I'm reminded of Pirsig's statement, "The Metaphysics of Quality [...] claims
  that all legitimate human knowledge arises from the senses or by thinking
  about what the senses provide."  He makes this statement while saying that
  the Metaphysics of Quality subscribes to [...] empiricism." (Lila, p. 98)
    
  If the Metaphysics of Quality is what is claims to be, the best road map of
  reality, then isn't it reasonable to expect it to provide for an understanding of all
  that has ever been, all that is and all that ever will be?  For me, this
  understanding needs to explain the interrelationships between knowledge,
  language, wisdom and metaphysics itself.
    
  So, for starters, where is metaphysics in the Metaphysics of Quality?
     
     
    Kevin Perez