From: Ian Glendinning (ian@psybertron.org)
Date: Mon Aug 23 2004 - 00:42:38 BST
Mark, second point.
You say here ...
> The MOQ itself is a [perfectly logical] construction absorbing
> and expanding the ideas of physics, evolutionary biology, and
> anthropology, to name a few.
Absolutely, the MoQ would be useless if it could not incorporate these
aspects of real life experience.
(Ignoring "perfectly logical" for the moment, because it adds nothing to the
truth of the point.)
Interestingly, Pirsig's accounts of anthropology stress the work of
Dusenberry and Sidis, and their break with treating anthropology as a
"science". Science is one thing, "social science" is however a myth. He even
discusses his thinking about writing his anthropological work on plains
Indians (even before he wrote ZMM). He was acutely aware of the "peer
review" process making it impossible to contsruct the story he wanted (in
ZMM and Lila eventually) BECAUSE the prevailing scientific view would
discout his (lack of) scientific methodology (my original Catch-22, DMB) . I
believe my views are very consistent with Pirsig's.
Ian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Steven Heyman" <markheyman@infoproconsulting.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 4:48 PM
Subject: MD MOQ and Logic/Science
> Hi Ian, Platt, Paul, and all,
>
> I've started a new thread, for obvious reasons.
>
> On 20 Aug 2004 at 22:23, Ian Glendinning wrote:
>
> What I'm amazed by, given that this is an MOQ discussion board that
> so many people defend the SOM logic.
>
> msh says:
> Well, I guess we'll have to call this particular formulation of
> dismissal a "Turnerism." Except, when Paul used it, I agreed: You
> can't deny that Quality is the cause of both subjects and objects,
> and still be talking about the MOQ.
>
> However, Ian and others here seem to be saying that logic and
> science, because they refrain from making "value" judgements, are
> themselves of no value. I respectfully argue that Pirsig himself
> does not believe this. There are countless passages in both ZMM and
> LILA where he uses science and logic to develop and support his
> ideas. The MOQ itself is a perfectly logical construction absorbing
> and expanding the ideas of physics, evolutionary biology, and
> anthropology, to name a few.
>
> So, I think it's a mistake to think that the MOQ somehow negates
> logic and science. Rather, the evaluative limitations of scientific
> and logical thinking are brought to light, and the MOQ is offered as
> a better (of higher explanatory Quality) but inclusive alternative to
> SOM. That the MOQ includes rather than dismisses SOM can be seen
> from these passages (and Pirsig quotes) from Ant McWatt's
> dissertation:
>
> "A significant contrast is constructed by Pirsig between 'subject-
> object metaphysics' (SOM) and the Metaphysics of Quality (MOQ). As
> discussed in Chapter One, the principal reason for the development of
> the MOQ was to revise the metaphysical foundations of American
> anthropology which had developed from the 'objective' functionalist
> approach of Franz Boas. 'This may sound as though a purpose of the
> Metaphysics of Quality is to trash all subject-object thought but
> that's not true' (Pirsig, 1991, p.103). It appears that Pirsig
> asserts this because the MOQ is constructed as a system that places
> SOM in a wider metaphysical context rather than rejecting the system
> wholesale. (McWatt 3.0)"
>
> And this, from Lila's Child RMP Annotation 4, where Dan Glover points
> out: "... subjects and objects are a species of the MOQ but no longer
> the top division of a presumed metaphysics. The presumed metaphysics
> of Western culture (SOM) has now been embedded in a larger system
> (MOQ) with a much greater resulting clarity that could be obtained
> using either system of thought by itself."
>
> Here's Pirsig's response:
> "... I began to see it's not necessary to get rid of them [subjects
> and objects] because the MOQ can encase them neatly within its
> structure - the upper two levels being subjective, and the lower two,
> objective. Still later I saw that the subject-object distinction is
> very useful for sharply distinguishing between biological and social
> levels... At present, I don't see that the terms 'subject' and
> 'object' need to be dropped, as long as we remember they are just
> levels of value, not expressions of independent scientific reality."
>
> I think Platt is right: the MOQ in no way requires us to abandon
> logic, (or science or even SOM), and the short quote he provides from
> LILA-8 is right on:
>
> "The tests of truth are logical consistency, agreement with
> experience, and economy of explanation."
>
> This is, to me, an important issue, so thanks in advance to all for
> any thoughtful comments.
>
> Best,
> Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
> --
> InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors
> Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983
> Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com
>
> "Thought is only a flash between two long nights, but this flash is
> everything." -- Henri Poincare'
>
>
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward -
http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 2.1.5 : Mon Aug 23 2004 - 00:54:32 BST