Hi Glenn
Interesting about Gödel, but as Sam hasn't yet responded I go on to our own
logic knot.
Me originally:
> >..what do you think about the logic (flaw or not)
> >that has bothered me all the time, namely that of the MOQ claiming to
> >be an intellectual pattern and thus a creation of one of its own
> >lesser parts. This grated my logical nerve until I found a respite in
> >the so-called SOL interpretation: That the MoQ is something beyond
> >intellect, which in this context becomes SOM. This alleviates the
> >logic bend but creates a loop, the MOQ is itself! There is no terrain
> >that a metaphysics is a map of; Its REALITY itself, full stop. This
> >last is "allowed" (in my logic) but not really satisfactory for the
> >down-to-earth- people who want it to be a better map.
Glenn:
> The SOL interpretation concludes that Pirsig invented reality. Unless
> you like being a figment of someone else's solipsism, this isn't for
> you.
The way I see it Pirsig means that SOM is a solipsism that enjoys its present
status because of so many are figments of it and no book called "The
Subject/Object Metaphysicsl" is to be found. No, this don't bother me, the
moment other joined Pirsig a small but viable solipsism was born.
> Without going into details over this, let me just say that
> this chicken-and-egg-like dilemma forces you to think about
> the distinction between a discovery and a creation, between the
> creation of a label for a pre-existing "thing" and the creation of the
> "thing" itself.
Haven't you missed the point of ZAMM where Phaedrus (mostly at the garden
party at De Weese's ) tries to address the discovery/creation distinction? This
is highlighted in the Newton-gravity example so let's concentrate on that.
> I don't have any neat answers for you, but I think the
> MOQ complicates the issue by insisting that everything is created (by
> the "measure of man"). We have Newton creating gravity in 1680, for
> example. This is really troublesome. Time then becomes a very
> difficult concept to reconcile with experience, and has all the "round
> and round" earmarks of dualism.
First of all, you MAY have taken the above point, but you see the MOQ as
creating the complication "...by insisting that everything is created (by the the
"measure of man"). It's here many go wrong by believing that Phaedrus says
that the material world is created by mind (of man: idealism) but he actually
says: (p 368 Corgi Books)
* Man is not the source of all things, as the subjective idealist would say,
nor is he the passive observer of all things as the objective idealist and
materialist would say. The quality which creates the world emerges as a
relationship between man and his experience. He is a participant in the
creation of all things ...etc
OK, it may sound as splitting hair, but "all things" aren't just the objective
world but the the subjective as well, most directly expressed in the sentence
* (234) "The Quality event is the cause of the subjects and objects, which
are then mistaken presumed to be the cause of the Quality".
Then the Gravity/Newton issue (I couldn't find it in ZAMM, do you have the
page number?) where he says something to the effect of there being no
gravity prior to Newton and something about modern man balking at such a
statement replying that it - along with all phenomena - were there for Newton
to discover.
This I wrote about to Wim so it'll be a repetition. Once a theory is accepted it
reaches back and re-crystallize the past into its own image. Before Newton
the Greek physics reigned and they naturally observed that things fell to the
ground but attributed the phenomenon to other principles (I may not be very
accurate here) yet they were able to calculate quite well from those premises.
Now WE are sure that (the observation) is due to "gravity" and our
calculations are immaculate , but there is no such absolute truth/reality, there
will surely someday come a new theory that puts this observation into a still
greater context (hasn't General Relativity already done so?). So the
Newton/Gravity example is not made troublesome by the MOQ - nor is "time"
as you mentioned ...it's SOM as always. Conclusion: A metaphysics - as a
theory of everything - reaches back and changes everything - EVERY LAST
BIT OF IT! (245)
(me from before)
> >I became so interested after this remarkable post that I checked on
> >your earliest entries Glenn, and found that you joined in September
> >99.
> Thanks for the buttery sounding words, but honestly - I re-read my
> post - it's not that remarkable. I'll always remember how nervous I
> was sending that first post and how nice it was that someone [you]
> responded and welcomed me to the MF, even though you went on to
> disagree with my comments.
Yes, many come to this discussions with high hopes, but ..alas.
> >by declaring the intellectual level a problem (within the MOQ) in the
> >sense that it broke the rule of "composition" (organisms composed of
> >matter, societies composed of organisms ...etc.) this I guess I
> >protested back then, but you may have had a new insight ...or?
> Or what?
> Yeah, it bothered me that the compositional theme didn't follow
> through. Intellectuals weren't composed of societies. I remember one
> other person's first ever post also complaining of this. Unfortunately
> it was also her last post.
No hidden message in the "or" other than me having MY hope of there one
day reporting another person with the same take on the MOQ as myself. Then
we would be 3 figments :-) because everything I read between the lines of
LILA tells me that Phaedrus is much more radical than the careful Pirsig can
afford to be.
> But I dropped the subject when DMB invented the now time-honoured MOQ
> snub that my arguments against the intellectual level were due to my
> inability to "see" the intellectual level. Ouch! Is this what you're
> hinting at when you say "...or?"? If so, ouch again, three years
> later! When I tried to explain the compositional theme further to
> David in a couple of private posts, he still didn't grasp the concept,
> and misconstrued this to mean that I thought size mattered, or
> something. Glenn --
Hmm, can't remember DMB using that one - not on me at least, but a little bit
about the composition idea. Please don't see it as "snubbing" but I don't think
that this is the salient point. All value increments are OUT OF the previous
levels, so in that case Intellect don't break any rule ...not my Intellect at least,
but the idea-one that most other flaunt is glaringly inconsistent.
Bo
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 - 16:02:04 BST