Diana challenges :
<<
> If you can prove (in an som context) that DQ exists in both the
> subject and the object then the subject-object metaphysics
> collapses, because in the subject-object metaphysics you cannot have
> a phenomenon that exists in both categories - and the only solution
> to it is to conclude that the categories are wrong.
>>
I like this premise and would like to add some thoughts:
First, I do believe that the proof, if it can be found, lies in Quantum
Physics.Or perhaps in chaos or complexity theory? The cutting edge of these
fields (thx for the insights Glove), go beyond the underlying assumptions of
SOM.
Second, Western thought has operated under SOM for so long, that most people
have lost sight that there were any assumptions. Bo makes a good point that
even if we did prove SOM wrong, that nobody would believe that what we proved
wrong is what they believed. An illustration of the dillemma we face is a
quote from Quantum Physicist Steve Weinberg on his view of metaphysics and
what he refers to as the unreasonable ineffectiveness of philosophy.....
<<<"I know of no one who has participated actively in the advance of physics
in the post war period whose work has been significantly helped by the work of
philosophers.">>>
Does this reflect the absence in value of the recent metaphysical selections,
or that physicists have to look beyond any static metaphysical pattern?
This question leads to my third point which is that even Pirsig commented that
MOQ does not insist on a single exclusive truth. It needs to be taken
provisionally until something better comes along (114). The MOQ can be
useful in the advancement of thought and science, but the MOQ also arises from
that science. Theories are explanations of reality. To quote quantum
computing pioneer David Deutsch :
<<<<"Science is a process not of deriving predictions from observations, but
of finding explanations">>>>>
When the MOQ is widely recognized as providing a better explanation than
competing theories it will then be accepted and used until a better theory
comes along.
My fourth point deals with Diana's mention of the aesthetic side of the MOQ,
and that focusing on just one side perpetuates the myth. Perhaps, but I also
fear that MOQ will never be accepted if it appears too aesthetic or
mystical.......Zen , Quality and Morality are terms that are dismissed as
subjective new age crap by much of our intended audience. Are we prepared to
remove these terms?
I am not saying that the aesthetic or romantic side should be pulled out, but
if we want acceptance, we need to explain these in SOM terms (pseudo-
objectively?) In chapter 8 of Lila, Pirsig points out ways to do this. For
example his replacement of the term "cause" with "value".
Diana, in summary I believe we need to show that the Intellectual Pattern
known as MOQ is a superior theory at explaining reality than competing
theories. Quantum physics forces some awkward explanations of reality in SOM
terms, and I suspect MOQ is the solution.
Be Good All........and Passionate!
Roger
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:35 BST