Platt, 3WD mainly, also Rob and all who have entered this thread.
Trust Bodvar to walk into this minefield. I don't particularly like to be
there but it must be cleared.
Platt wrote:
> I admit to having a problem with Bo's explanation of the MOQ as a
> fifth level, not because I think it's wrong but that I don't quite
> "get it." So I read 3WD's response seeking enlightenment, but am now
> more confused than ever. And it's all because of this map-territory,
> menu- food, finger-moon business that gets repeated time and again.
Hope you "get it" from this post. It's an effort to evade the logic
bend that has haunted me (at least) since early in our discussion.
3WDave points to one aspect of it: Pirsig's words about a
metaphysics as a menu - the food something else, but it has
emerged in other guises of which the map/terrain is the most
prominent. As said I also spot it in the "Quality/DQ-sq" and the
"spirit/everything else" conundrums For a moment over to 3WD
who wrote:
> > I'm sure you recall Pirsig saying:
> > > "Metaphysics is not reality. Metaphysics names reality." Lila-pp
> > > 63
> > > "Metaphysics is a restaurant where they give you a thirty-thousand
> > > page menu and no food." Lila-pp, 63
> > And rhetorically I ask, "Where does this "thirty-thousand page
> > menu" of values reside? Or If we want to find this "thirty-thousand
> > page menu" of values that "names reality" where within the MoQ
> > system might we look?
> > Why the intellectual level, of course.
> > So your balloon of "metaphysics of the levels" floats along with
> > Pirsigs claim that there is a complete and discrete system of laws
> > or morals that pertained exclusively to each level. But where it
> > differs, and goes astray in my opinion, is that all these
> > "metaphysics of levels" or talking about reality, or talking about
> > values, or theories about values, are qualities, patterns of value,
> > exclusive to the levels they talk about.
I'm not all convinced that you have got my "levels as its era's
'metaphysics'", but ...have I got your treatment of it?
> > NoNo, Double No. They are two different things.
> > The values of the levels are values of the levels (food), the talk
> > about those values is an intellectural value (menu). And just like
> > this post (menus) are fallible, (food) just is. And that's the point
> > the pragmatic tradition has been trying to make for nearly 200
> > years, to little avail I might add.
Yes I recall the said LILA passages. This your last paragraph is
clear and sounds obvious, but the Quality/DQ-riddle shows the
problem better. DQ is supposed to be the all-pervading reality in
which the static levels have crystallized, but if the DQ/sq is a mere
intellectual pattern it requires another QUALITY that the DQ/sq is
just one possible divide of. I spot a somish apparition here.
Platt again:
> Now my question is: "Are not thoughts, symbols, maps, menus, signs,
> pointing fingers and the like as "real" as more tangible things such
> as talk, banyan trees and moons? I mean here we have Pirsig claiming
> that something as ideational as Quality is the primary reality of the
> world
This is exactly what I mean, but even the master "sells out" by his
"Metaphysics is not reality. Metaphysics names reality."
It is in the subject/object view that "names" have no reality: SOM is
the VALUE of distinguishing between what's subjective and
objective, and this immense value can't be thrown into some
metaphysical wastebasket, but must be preserved ....as MoQ's
Intellect!
An aside for Rob:
You say:
> Because in SOM, only subjects and objects
> are REAL. In the MOQ, everything that can be experineced is real.
> Everything.
On SOM: Perhaps the term "subjective" covers what the S is
about. What's subjective is TREATED in SOM, but treated as
imaginary, illusory. Note that Pirsig at some instant uses
"Substance Metaphysics". On MOQ: We don't say that there isn't
a difference between a word and an object (something that
characterized the magic q-social world before q-intellet when
painting an animal or chanting its name brought it to the pit), but
the MoQ - as a new q-level - movement ..phew this will be a new
essay so enough. This not to snub you.
Platt ctd:
> and yet if I read 3WD right, "Pragmatically speaking, Quality is
> not really real." Take it a step further and perhaps I can claim that
> what 3WD says is not really real because it's just words. And you can
> take this post and shove it, too, on the basis that it doesn't exist.
Spot on!!
> Is the distinction between map and territory that, as 3WD suggests,
> the former is "fallible" while the latter just "is." If so, what is
> fallible about the Sistine Chapel or Taj Mahal? It's almost as if 3WD
> is taking the science position of "if you can't measure it, it isn't
> real," thereby eliminating most of the social level and the entire
> intellectual level in one fell swoop. And as the intellectual level
> goes down the tube along with it goes "truth" (unless polls establish
> what's true as some have suggested.)
This too ...even if I'm not sure about the Sistine Chapel point, but
never mind, my fault :-).
> So here's my question, "How can I tell which of the four levels is
> real, if any?" If I know that, perhaps I could apply the same criteria
> to see if Bo's fifth level is also real.
Quality=Reality so the levels are real enough. Above I told why I
want the q-intellectual level to be the S/O divide, and if so the MoQ
(which is supposed to replace the SOM) can't be another S/O
pattern but a new q-growth. If not a full-fledged 5th, at least a 4th
level pattern that has started on a purpose of its own.
This makes the MoQ "itself", but that isn't logically forbidden, just
impossible to prove, something I believe Gödel's Theorem is all
about. Angus says this creates a solipsistic MoQ, a most relevant
comment.
Bo
PS:
This day brought many suggestions for what characterizes q-
intellect. From above it follows that my candidate is the
"subject/object divide" and thus I join Scott R, for what is REASON
except the ability to distinguish between the two? Any law-like
expression I'm not able to come up with.
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 - 16:01:51 BST