Hi Erin,
Thanks for the reply. Yes, I am vague. Ok.
Victorianism as metaphysics? What is a metaphysics? It
is a framework for labelling things. So Victorianism
is a metaphysics of morality because it was a code of
conduct, it labelled moral things. It failed. So I
used Victorianism as an example of Comte's 3 stage
process: theology and metaphysics of morality don't
work, we need a positivist system instead. What is a
positivist approach? It is not the logical positivist
sense. RATHER, it is the "I posit this idea" sense.
Morality needs an ideal to POSIT, and in Pirsig's case
it is LILA. IMO, Pirsig is misquided in emphasizing
his metaphysics because people interpret metaphysics
in a logical way. They don't see the parallel universe
of ideas in time, they only see metaphysics in space
(which is why Bo's SOLAQI is misguided, he only looks
at the spatial logic of metaphysics). I have called
for a paraconsistent logic: a logic that is open to
spatial logic as well as temporal logic (static and
Dynamic quality respectively). Unfortunately, language
forces us into spatial logic more often than not, and
dynamic logic is almost impossible to express as Late
Wittgenstein "shows." Temporal logic is the world of
"show" and spatial logic is the world of "say." The
last line of early Wittgenstein was "of that which i
can not speak about i pass over in silence." Late
Wittgenstein realized you could "speak" about it, BUT
only in ways that worked around the use of language.
So what is a metaphysics? "Meta" is a reflexive term.
Metacommunication is communication about
communication. Metaphysics is physics about physics.
It's not coincidental that the Biblical interpretation
of "know thyself" is "screw thyself." The spatial
logic of "know thyself" is logical. The temporal logic
is an action, and that action is love. As you can see
my metaphysics is radical and paraconsistent. I think
you can interpret LILA with my view and it works,
which is why I still hang around here. LILA is a story
(dynamic logic) and a set of rules (static logic).
Emphasizing MOQ is wrong by half.
As for love as valuing, that's not quite right, by
half. Love as valuing is spatial logic, not dynamic
logic. Dynamic love is an unabashed surrender into the
flow of the moment. It has no object as a valuing
would. Of course, in a paraconsistent logic, love has
both spatial and dynamic logic. See Kierkegaard's
Works of Love in this regard, or maybe see Eyes Wide
Shut. Dynamic love is love that surrenders but posits
no object. Here's an experiment: next time you are mad
at someone or frustrated or upset, look around your
environment and see what wants to interact with you
and then start interacting with it ( someone
approaches or a light catches your eye etc.) Interact
with it with an "open heart." The results will show
you that the world wants to love, you just have to
turn on your heartlight (ET reference).
angus
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/
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 - 16:02:09 BST