[MF] Where is metaphysics in the MOQ?

[Matt Kundert]

Kevin,

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

"... There already is a metaphysics of Quality. ..."

...
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 staic 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?

Matt:
Well, I'll first say that I think you're right, there does seem to be at 
least some sort of ambiguity in what Pirsig seems to be saying about 
metaphysics.  I've read the passage you pulled in the past as suggesting 
something of the sort, of suggesting an "ultimate reality."

The second thing I'll say is that I think it a very bad idea.  Whenever 
Pirsig suggests something like an "ultimate reality," I don't think we 
should interpret him as suggesting there's another reality in addition to 
the one we're currently embedded in, yesterday, today, and tomorrow.  I 
think to do so would be to interpret Pirsig along the lines of the 
Platonism, bad traditional appearance/reality metaphysics that's part and 
parcel of SOM, that Pirsig wants to eschew.  If we interpret two directions 
in Pirsig, one towards an ultimate reality that defines "yesterday, today, 
and tomorrow," and one that simply replaces SOM, I think we're left with the 
two-headed Pirsig that I've been trying to both illuminate and to get rid 
of.  The first direction ends up being Platonic metaphysics all over again 
and the second is the pragmatist eschewment of Platonic metaphysics.  I 
think we can do with out the first direction and should interpret, whether 
it really is there or not, Pirsig without it.

Because when you ask how "something that is represented by static patterns 
have anything to say about ultimate reality?" the simply answer is: it 
doesn't.  That's the confusion that is bred.  In my recent post to David 
Morey in the "Julian Baggini" thread in the MD, I coincidently am talking 
about just this mistake in interpreting Pirsig (and incidently Heidegger).

My "Confessions" essay in the Essay Forum tries to broach the subject of 
these two interpretations in Pirsig.

Matt

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/