Hi Platt.
I feel you are misleading yourself.
The MOQ is a Copernican revolution and you have to go with this.
Are you hanging back Platt? ;)
Here is what i mean:
The Metaphysics is the title of a collection of works attributed to Aristotle.
The Physics is also as above.
Metaphysics deals with first cause; Prime mover, and has a theological tone.
Physics deals with what exists, which is substances.
The MOQ changes this:
Metaphysics now deals with Dynamic Quality.
Physics now deals with static patterns of quality.
Cause and substance have been abandoned as a truth dominant paradigm.
Dynamic and static value, (quality/moral, all synonyms) replace as quality
dominant paradigm.
Therefore, since Pirsig developed the MOQ, science deals directly with
quality/values/morals.
Anything we once viewed as substantial is now viewed as moral: A TV set is a
moral entity; the more so if it works very well.
So, static patterns of quality, existing in a relationship with each other
and primarily with DQ is now the basis for science.
The excellent move forward here is, of course, that relationships that were
once ignored because they are not substantial, i.e. societies, can now be
examined scientifically.
All this is either explicit or implicit in Lila.
Stop quoting and start thinking.
All the very best to you,
Squonk. :-)
P.S. Other comments appear below...
In a message dated 9/21/01 2:20:34 PM GMT Daylight Time, pholden@sc.rr.com
writes:
<< Subj: Re: MD Four theses
Date: 9/21/01 2:20:34 PM GMT Daylight Time
From: pholden@sc.rr.com (Platt Holden)
Sender: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
Reply-to: moq_discuss@moq.org
To: moq_discuss@moq.org
Hi Squonk:
> Re. Science of morals: Last two paragraphs of chapter 12 Lila.
I checked these out and find no reference to a science of morals. He
(Pirsig) does speak of science and ethics being integrated into a
single system he named the Metaphysics (not science) of Quality.
In many places he says the problem with science is that it is objective
and therefore finds no morals as it studies natural phenomena, or
when studying societies, declares morals relative.
See above.
> Re. Biological attack: Nope, it's a struggle between two social patterns.
> Degenerate Christians V fundamentalist Muslims. Religions are a moral code
> conferred by a deity. A biological attack has more to do with sexual
> selection, territories, etc.
Freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights are not
products of degenerate Christians. They are products of intellectual
values as Pirsig clearly states. As for biology, when Pirsig writes
"Society can handle biology alone by means of prisons and guns and
policy and military," he's not talking about sexual selection.
US values are democratic, and democracy is an intellectual pattern of value.
I apologise for arguing with you Platt.
However, US citizens don't live in a democracy because its leaders are bent.
In a true democracy, what are the chances of a son becoming president within
a few short years after his father?
Democratic dynasties?
Bush, Kennedy et al.
Come on, the US a democracy? Pull the other one!
Only green backs and influential friends get you to the White house.
> Re. Absolute truth. Science has an in built eraser, religion does not;
If you have an eraser and are willing to use it, you are not a purveyor
of absolute truth by definition.
I agree with you Platt.
Science has had to deal with so many paradigm shifts that it now implicitly
recognises a more pragmatic approach in that current theories are provisional.
However, science still claims a special status in that it alone an explain in
truth terms. The phrase, 'Argument to best explanation' implicitly recognises
the higher status of value, (best) in scientific endeavour?
The MOQ places value at the centre of science in that everything it explores
are static patterns of value.
Quality is the only truth it would seem?
> Re. Metaphysics. I understand the distinction between physics and
metaphysics.
> The MOQ is a contradiction of sorts and that is why we may be able to base
> science upon Quality rather than Truth.
> Plato made the mistake of insisting upon a form of truth, and Aristotle
> embodies this in his theory of substance.
> If science has an in built eraser, then maybe one day we can place Quality
at
> it's heart?
> Let's not insist that static terms such as, 'Science' can never change
their
> meaning?
Sure, science can change its meaning if everybody agrees. Until then,
we should stick with the common meaning so we can understand one
another.
>>
The common meaning has been over thrown ever since the publication of Lila.
Don't hang back!
Again, Squonk.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
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 - 16:01:31 BST