"THE MOQ MAY COME TO SERVE S/O LOGIC NOT BY INVALIDATING IT BUT BY DEFINING ITS CORRECT USE AND PREVENTING ITS ABUSE"
Dear Bodvar, Walter, Avid, Platt and Squad,
Bodvar, we have now been cyber friends for quite a long time and I hope you
won't take offence at my taking a "patronising" attitude, but I am terribly
disappointed in some of the things you have said recently.
BODVAR (to Jonathan)
> For JONATHAN:
> ZAMM(!) vs LILA is more of a literature debate, we can only
> state our positions.
I do not consider this a literary debate. I have been talking about the
philosophical ideas first presented in ZAMM. ZAMM is the "Old Testament" of
the MoQ. I think it is rather important, perhaps MORE important than the New
Testament (Lila). Actually, it might be more accurate to regard Lila as a
sort of commentary, and these Lila Squad discussions as Talmudic.
Pirsig didn't reject ZAMM when he wrote Lila. He made it quite clear that
Lila was an extension of the philosophical road that he had started in ZAMM.
I there take Bodvar's repeated rejection of ZAMM very seriously and as a
result read everything else he writes with great suspicion.
I am just as bothered by Bodvar's putting down of Pirsig's "SODV" paper:
BODVAR (to Walter):
>And yet, I have said this before: In the [SODV] paper Pirsig addresses
>an assembly of non-moqers and goes to great lengths to sound
>"realist". He is prevented from applying the MOQ on its own terms.
[snip]
>To reach this audience Pirsig should
>have started with the basics, but he did not have the time - or was
>wise enough to understand that having accepted the invitation he was
>supposed to speak on their terms (something called "Principia
>Cybernetics" arranged the conference I believe).
>
>But we of this forum are supposed to know so the SODAV is not for
>us. Bringing it (as well as ZAMM) into the MOQ discussion often
>causes confusion.
I agree with Bodvar that some parts of the paper may cause minor confusion.
However, to dismiss it as "not for us" is unacceptable. As academic papers
go, I regard the paper as a good one, though it is certainly not perfect. I
think it would be quite valuable for Bodvar to bring forth his problems with
this paper to this forum to see if we might be able to discuss it
constructively.
I believe that at the heart of all this is what I consider to be a
misconception (by Bodvar) of what the MoQ, or for that matter any
metaphysics, actually is.
BODVAR:
>It's painful to hear Pirsig having to say these impossible SOM
>(cum MOQ) things. Once a theory the size of a metaphysics is accepted
>(and this is the first time ever something of this magnitude has
>been proposed) it immediately crystallize reality into its
>patterns.....every last bit.
IMO is completely inappropriate to regard the MoQ as a theory that can be
tested like a scientific hypothesis. There are some similarities in that
hypotheses and metaphysical systems involve certain structures of logic.
That is my justification for using Einsteinian vs. Newtonian mechanics to
illustrate the relationship between MoQ and SOM. However, there are also
significant differences: Scientific hypotheses are testable based on what
are accepted as REAL observed facts (data). Metaphysics is concerned with
what constitutes reality itself. Bodvar, I know you were around when Donny
P. was telling us this again and again and again. I am grateful to Donny for
driving this point so forcefully.
Metaphysics defines the reality which unites as society. Without that unity,
there is no society, no Lila Squad. There is a lot of agreement between us
about what is real and what is not. The sun rising every morning is real,
that solar eclipse recently was real, but that recent Elvis sighting reported in the
National Enquirer wasn't. What we are arguing about isn't so much the
reality itself, but how to define it metaphysically.
For this reason, I am somewhat bemused by AVID's statement:
>What worries me is that all of this discussion could have been made without
>Pirsig's theory too. All you are arguing about is Reality vs. Observation
>period. Not about MoQ.
Of course we don't NEED Pirsig to discuss metaphysics. Pirsig's MoQ is a
description about the reality perceived collectively by mankind, and IMO
opinion he has hit several nails on the head!!! But that reality exists
equally with or without the MoQ. The point is that Pirsig's MoQ offers a
great deal to the debate.
AVID
>MoQ is a different set of Metaphysics and it should be built in order to
>see how it functions. These little building stones are formulated experiences
>of quality, SPQ, static patterns of quality. So please if someone here cares
>to shift from our SOM to MoQ, please do, but it requires a shift.
I'd put it another way. The MoQ should be investigated to see if it is an
accurate and useful description of the reality we know. If that is accepted
to be the case, then extrapolations from the MoQ's axioms may bootstrap us
into new areas of understanding.
Back to BODVAR (to Jonathan)
>But you must
> admit that once one theory becomes part of a greater framework, its
> basics aren't valid. I must disagree. The basics ARE valid (or the theory
must fall together). What happens is that the basics (axioms) of the lesser
theory can be inferred from the deeper axioms of the greater theory. Thus,
what were formerly considered as basics now become secondary. Subjects and
Objects, basic to our Greek dominated philosophical outlook are no longer
basic, but secondary in the MoQ.
>Exactly as with the Einstein/Newton example that
> you so aptly point to, something that leads to the phenomenon that
> you can't use them alternatively as if part of the same framework.
But you CAN use them alternatively. You can put a man on the moon using
Einstein's equations to calculate the trajectories, but because of the low
velocities, Newton's equations are simpler to use. involved the much
simpler.
> You have to go by way of a "transformation" procedure.
> And God, a SOM/MOQ equivalent to the "Lorentz Equations" I have yelped
> about ever since we started this discussion.
I'm not sure if I fully understand what Bodvar means by a "transformation" and have to think about it some more. IMO a transformation may be nothing
more than translating the words from Greek to English. Perhaps
"transcendence" is a better word to describe progress from SOM to MoQ.
PLATT wrote:
> > Now what is happening here? Pirsig is "rationalizing" his switch from
> > not defining Quality to defining Quality. As Bo himself asserts, an
> > intellectual pattern is subject/object logic. The logical paradox here
is
> > that Pirsig assumes the validity of s/o logic prior to using s/o logic
to
> > justify using s/o logic (metaphysics) to describe reality. I believe in
> > law that's called, "assuming a fact not yet in evidence." or more
> > commonly, "putting the cart before the horse."
>
and BODVAR replied:
[snip]
> The above looks devastating and I doubt if my "apology" satiesfiy
> your overwhelming logic and legal demands, but a new theory has to
> build on its predecessor's assumptions, and If I dare to wield my
> idea that Intellect is S/O logic (metapysics) itself, a DQ attempt to
> transcend its latest static creation will have to "start in its
> service", but ...go on pursuing a purpose of its own.... (LILA
> somewhere).
I agree with them both! "Putting the cart before the horse" may be a fair
assessment, but it's a part of the bootstrapping process. One starts off
with certain assumptions, and later finds out if those assumptions were
useful, or even necessary. The MoQ may come to serve S/O logic not by
invalidating it, but by defining its correct use and preventing its abuse.
That's how Lila started - Phaedrus's suspicion that academic anthropology
was misusing the principles of objectivity.
I'm going to let BODVAR have the last word:
> PPS.
> Today's (Sunday at my longitude) posts possibly brought in new
> inputs but to get something off at all before all universe's riddles
> are solved (or complicated unto absurdum) by Roger and David this
> will have to do.
Touch? my friend. The time changes but the tune stays the same.
Jonathan
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:10 BST