[MF] Where is metaphysics in the MOQ?

[Muzikhed at aol.com]

Kevin wrote:

I take  the following to mean that, for Pirsig, the Metaphysics of Quality is
THE  metaphysics.

[...] the issue  before him was not whether there should be a
metaphysics of Quality or not. There already is a metaphysics of
Quality.  A subject-object metaphysics is in fact a  metaphysics in
which the first division of Quality-the  first slice of undivided
experience is into subjects  and objects. (Lila, p. 107)

I believe he says this  because he has to say it, for two reasons.  He says
Quality is the  source of all things.  And he can't afford not to be  
logically
consistent.

But then he clearly  distinguishes the Metaphysics of Quality from
Subject-Object  Metaphysics.  So it would appear, for Pirsig, there are at
least two  contexts for metaphysics.  There is metaphysics that points  to
ultimate reality.  And there is metaphysics that proceeds in the  other
direction, either slicing reality into subjects and objects or static  quality
and dynamic quality.

Within the context  of a metaphysics that points to ultimate reality it would 
seem to  me that if it were valid at all it would have to be valid yesterday, 
 
today and tomorrow.

But I guess I'm  missing something.  How can something that is
represented by static  patterns have anything to say about ultimate reality?


Kevin



Ted asks:
   Kevin, can you help me fill in the steps on how you got to  this specific 
statement:
    
"So it would appear, for Pirsig, there are at least two contexts for  
metaphysics.  There is metaphysics that points to ultimate reality.   And there is 
metaphysics that proceeds in the other direction, either slicing  reality into 
subjects and objects or static quality
and dynamic  quality."
 
 
It seemed like you made an extra division Pirsig didn't.  I didn't see  his 
reference to 'ultimate reality'.
 
I thought Pirsig was asking himself the question:
Quality:
Metaphysics ?   is 1st division:
     Dynamic / Static   or    Subject / Object ?
 
As I read your statement, I think you're saying:
(Pirsig said?)
Metaphysics?
ultimate reality       - or  -                       Other direction :
      ?                                        Static  /Dynamic   or   
Subject /  Object                               
 
----------------------
Are you saying you think Pirsig meant that Quality is the "ultimate  reality" 
and the Metaphysics models are 'going in another  direction'?   It may be a 
matter of linguistics, but I do think you  may have missed Pirsig's point.
   
 
This probably won't help, but sometimes I think of the word  'stable' to 
describe Pirsig's static  quality.    'Static' is the best complimentary word for  
'Dynamic', but the word 'stable' give rings well in my engineering ear  also. 
 Static means stable for some finite time period, but NOT (I'm  confident 
Pirsig would agree) "forever".  No pattern is predicted to last  forever, not 
sub-atomic arrangements, not grains of sand, not stars, or  galaxies, and 
certainly not species, or societies, of  ideas.   As Neil Young says, "Rust Never  
Sleeps."     
 
Q:   How did these things come to be like this?
A:   They found it preferable to be these ways. 
 
They found there's more than one way to  be.
Yes, there have been conflicts  among them.
       They are there because they  haven't yet given it up.
      Things that seem permanent just have a  longer time scale.
 
       And when the king asked the wise  men
       for a statement that "always  would be true,"
       they returned with:
      "These things too shall pass  away."          - Pearls Before  Swine
      
There must be a continuum of 'frequencies' of 'quality events' from the  
extremely fast quantum interactions to slower chemical reaction rates, slower  yet 
(fractional second) biological response times, and relatively  plodding 
social reaction times, such as election cycles or celebrity cycle  times, and 
slower intellectual 'sea changes'.
 
A lot is made of this 'First slice' of reality.  Isn't is obvious that  
Pirsig's 1st slice is between the known and the unknown?    He  says 'static 
quality' is everything in the dictionary, everything named,  subdivided, besides 
ordinary things like cars and people, also including things  like 'theories', 
'models' and 'metaphysics', 'Zen Buddhism'. 
Dynamic Quality, is that one thing that can't be defined in the  
dictionary... again, as we learned in ZMM, we may disagree on which things are  better, 
but we all agree on what it means to 'be better' , 'to be preferable'  .  When 
asked what's your favorite flavor of ice cream, you might say  vanilla, you 
might say you don't have a favorite, but no-one says, "I have no  idea what you 
mean by the question 'which one do you like?' "   Any  person not knowing what 
it means to have a preference in any way is very  near to dead, I'd think.
The word "future", and "unknown" are also in the dictionary,  but they point 
to the same undefined thing.   I'm not sure there  is a future.  (Not yet, 
anyway!)   
 
I think the analog of chemical equilibrium works very well for me in  
thinking about the MoQ.
Perhaps no accident, since Pirsig has a strong chemistry  background.   In 
chemical reactions, there are preferences, but there  is always an equilibrium, 
even if the preference is so strong that it seems  'absolute'.    Similarly in 
physical phase changes like ice  water, the ice cubes are constantly 
'melting' in some spots, and 'freezing' in  others, in a continuous dynamic process.
Even after the ice is 'all melted'  there is still an (invisible on  the 
macro scale) continual creation of ice.  The same thing happens in  quantum 
mechanics : the 'void' NOT a dead vacuum, but an extremely  high-frequency buzzing 
of creation and annihilation, of abundant transformation. 
 
 I've ranted on almost enough, but the MoQ seems so clear to me,  yet it 
seems so confusing to so many.   
(... this would be the time for all good MoQ's to hammer me for thinking I  
have it right !)
 
It's probably a function of where I've come from, & come though.   I have 
always loved puzzles, and have looked for the underlying rules, or  patterns.     
I did well OK school, but was socially  retarded and disengaged.   I loved 
art, but got not support, since I  was better in school, and my sister was 
better in art.   I backed into  engineering, but came to love it.   Learning  
Calculus caused a huge world-view change.  Although accepted to  the PhD program in 
Cornell's department of "Theoretical and Applied  Mechanics" , I crapped out 
and only got a Masters, through the blessed  generosity of my Committee 
Chairman. 
 Socially, though, I couldn't seem to figure anything out,  however. After 
once falling in love, no lessons learned from failure seemed  to apply the next 
time.  I was ever over-correcting,  mis-understanding, being mis-understood.   
Commonly agreed  to social rules were found to be contradictory.  Advice 
sucked.  I  would have conflicting desires, and not be able to decide which should 
 dominate.   I couldn't balance my "wants", against 'her' stated  "needs," 
for example.   
Extreme adventures into the academic and professional sciences  of psychology 
and psychiatry proved of  little value.  Adventures into New Age wholism were 
not that  enlightening.  
 
All this to say.... 
Having the MoQ in hand, it's easy to see that 'Values' are the 'coin of the  
realm' of human society.  Not that I understood that very well when I was  
younger, but, it's sure easy to see.  It's like money. Cha-ching.   That theory's 
money! 
If not cash, then cache', or celebrity.  Physical beauty's worth a lot  
socially.  Faking and trying to maintain physical beauty - worth a lot of  cash!  
Of course, true love is worth much more.   Highly valued,  that 'true love.'  
Loyalty. 
Even Beavis and Butthead know that there's only two kinds of things:   Things 
that are Cool, and things that Suck.  
 
By postulating "Values" as at the center of the inorganic world,  it's much 
easier to see a real unity that frankly, before the MoQ, was  really wanting.  
Inorganic things have their values, too.  They used  to laugh when someone 
said that a tree 'liked' to grow in the sun, or a  motor 'likes' to run at 2800 
rpm, or an oxygen atom 'likes' a hydrogen  atom.  Anthropomorphizing.  But 
there's maybe a little more than  something to it.  
 
The boundaries between the inorganic & the biological, and between the  
biological & the social, and the social & the intellectual are where the  moral 
questions are.   
 I could speculate that  think there maybe have been other levels  in the 
deep past, that are so worked out now that they are relatively  unified &  
cooperative, with no remaining moral issues.
I'm thinking here of the suppressed "Lizard Brain" that we all may  have as 
an artifact of evolution towards mammal-dom, described in Carl  Sagan's book 
"Dragons of Eden".  
Evolution's a long setup, obviously society, intellect, and the  MoQ, these 
are all quite new and transient.
 
 
 
Ted