--- RISKYBIZ9@aol.com wrote:
> JUSTIN:
> I got this problem from reading about
> interpretations
> of mathematics. It's called Conceptualism, and I
> think
> it poses a serious problem to the MOQ. Any help here
> or answers would be appreciated. Thanks.
>
> -As far as mathematics, Conceptualism states that we
> invent math, not discover it- it is our own
> modelling
> of reality in a way that we can intellectually
> understand. Math seems to fit nature so well (as per
> a
> Neo-Platonist claim) because we have designed it to
> do
> so.
>
> ROG:
> We keep those rare patterns that have Quality and
> sweep the others away.
> Marco and I were saying something similar about
> other (non mathrematical)
> forms of ART
>
> JUSTIN:
> The same could be said of Quality. The idea of
> Quality
> can seem like it works to us now simply because
> Pirsig
> has designed the MOQ to work based off reality. With
> all our analogues we have built up to reality, how
> can
> we ever know we are truly seeing Quality?
>
> The problem, therefore, is the possibility that
> Quality does not exist in and of itself, but only as
> a
> model for our experiences. Every person will have
> their own definition of Quality, even w/out the
> analogues, because it is their own modelling of what
> they perceive they see because Pirsig has said it's
> out there.
>
> ROG:
> Static patterns. Each of us is defined by our
> unique spectrum of patterns.
> We should each have our own definitions. Maybe if
> we add them all up, we can
> get a super definition. Dynamic Quality is that from
> which the patterns are
> derived.
>
> How can we be sure? We can't. We shouldn't. If the
> metaphor doesn't work,
> find another. Better yet, drop all metaphors, at
> least whenever possible.
>
JUSTIN
But if we can't be sure, then why bother at all? If
Quality is merely an assumption, then we lose the
entire point for believing in it. We have lost the
aspect of the Truth as a part of Quality...and once
you remove a part from the One, is it truly the One
anymore? 'All that has arete other then true things,
which we can't be sure about' hardly seems like a
workable idea for any monistic philosophy.
The real problem is resolving Conceptualism/Hume's
skepticism with the MOQ. If we can't be sure of our
senses, and if we get all our data from our senses,
then how can we be sure of anything?
(I have a vague idea here- maybe, perhaps, we can see
Quality independently of our senses? Could that work?)
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online!
http://photos.yahoo.com/
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:55 BST