From: Matt Kundert (pirsigaffliction@hotmail.com)
Date: Sat Jul 16 2005 - 17:02:56 BST
Part II
------------------
Matt's syllogistic attempt to understand what Bo means:
If the MoQ is Reality, then the MoQ is Quality.
If the MoQ is Quality, then when people talk about Quality, they are giving
opinions about the MoQ (that's what you said you were doing on June 21).
If we are giving opinions about the MoQ on the MD, then Pirsig was giving
opinions about the MoQ in Lila.
If Pirsig was giving opinions about the MoQ in Lila, then when he presented
a philosophical system called the "Metaphysics of Quality," he was making a
systematic presentation of his opinions about Reality--about the MoQ.
So, in the end, we have the "Metaphysics of Quality," which is Pirsig's
assemblage of opinions about Reality, and the Metaphysics of Quality, which
is Reality.
Bo said:
You constantly try to bluff me. Back to Newton and gravity. For centuries it
constituted physical reality. You may well say that "when giving opinion
about physical reality" they spoke about Newton's theory, but no-one knew or
cared. Thus reality is constituted by the MOQ.
Matt:
Bluff you? I'm trying to understand you. And you aren't helping. If I'm
sending you through a "distortion machine" its because the implications of
the things you say are utterly obscure and I'm trying to fit together the
inferentional steps that lead places.
What you're failing to understand is that I did _not_ say in the above that
when people talk about rocks they are speaking, unbeknownst to them, about
Newton's theory. I'm saying they were talking about rocks. You say that
"reality is constituted by the MoQ," but that's a little different than
simply saying that "reality is the MoQ." What do you mean? You say that
"Saying that the intellectual level contains all theories makes it identical
to 'mind' and people with that view identical to SOM idealists," but the
question on everyone's "mind" is: did you just make a distinction between
theories in the intellectual level and theories not? That kinda' came out
of nowhere (not really, but I never thought you'd actually say it). What is
the difference between your two conceptions of theories? When are we giving
and talking about one and not the other?
This, of course, all leads back to my old questions: What are you doing when
you are talking about the MoQ? What are these opinions you are giving? How
are they different from, say, Paul, mine, and Pirsig’s?
Matt said:
Bo, if you had read my interpretation, you'd know that it would take your
piece of evidence and spit it out as, "Pirsig's diagram is of the Modern
predicament, not the Ancient."
Bo said:
Please enlarge on the Modern versus Ancient predicament.
Matt:
Oh really? You, the hip-shooter, want _me_, the pedant, to elaborate? How
about you start by reading the stuff I’ve already written explicitly for
you. June 29th. Part I to III. It mainly talks about Pirsig, and ends
with a few suggestions about where the intellectual history debate will go,
but we can get to the history a little later if you’d like. I'd like to
start with Pirsig.
Bo said:
What is called intellect in the MOQ arose in Greece, so Pirsig says in the
Paul letter and so does Paul admit. That this development also is described
as the emergence of SOM is plain. That these two facts makes SOM=intellect
is just as plain, I just wonder what's the reason is for denying it.
Matt:
Now we’re jumping around. You’re reading back and forth, later Pirsig to
early Pirsig and vice versa, keeping what you want and throwing away the
rest. Which is fine. I have no problem. But as far as making the
interpretation stick, particularly claims about the correct reading of
Pirsig, you need to offer some explanations about how we get from the early
to the later, why the later is wrong in some areas, and yet right in others.
When I do things like that, I offer explanations. We need a bit more
than, “Pirsig had a failure of nerve.” Pirsig says that the “intellect”
arose in Greece. He also says that it arose in the East (which you love to
leave out). He also doesn’t seem to be very sure about any of it. He seems
like a guy being pressed for an opinion he doesn’t really have: “Well, I
guess if I had to say … Greece. Ya’ know, Socrates and stuff.” If you read
my interpretation, you’d know I deny (and back up to some extent that
denial) that SOM (taken to be the subject/object, mind/matter dualism that
generates problems) emerged in Greece. Further, you never answered this
question: how does the genesis of two things at the same time make them the
same? Are intellect and democracy the same thing? They must be by your
lights. They both originated in Greece at about the same time.
There are many, many reasons for denying SOM=intellect, Bo. You just
haven’t addressed any of them.
Oh, and for the record, if you want my opinion about the definition of the
intellectual level I think Pirsig was hunting for (but I also think he
missed) it is this: "reflection." In other words, philosophy, as Socrates,
Plato, but especially Aristotle defined it. But, ya' know, I still think
that definition is wrong, though more true to his concerns.
Bo said:
That SOM changed enormously from the Plato-Aristotles time to Descartes' is
also plain, so much that its ancient form can only with difficulty be seen
in the modern guise (perhaps this is your modern/ancient above?) but it was
the start of it, that's ZMM's very message.
Matt:
Yeap, changed a lot. But, as I’m arguing, what was definitive of SOM at the
time of Greece was not the subject/object, mind/matter dualism. It was the
appearance/reality dualism. That is the message of ZMM. And unlike your
assertions, which don't really have a lot of argumentation surrounding them,
my assertions have a little bit surrounding them that you haven't addressed:
June 29th. Part I. Part II. Part III.
Oh, and its not that hard to see once you realize that the
appearance/reality distinction is what you are looking for. It _is_ hard to
see, though, if you are looking for, say, Descartes’ problems in Ancient
Greece (mind/body problem, problem of the external world, etc.). And
Descartes’ problems are what the subject/object, mind/matter dualisms are
all about.
Matt
p.s. If you want to stop being treated like a petulant child, maybe you
should stop acting like one. I know that's from Paul and my's perspective,
and you certainly have a different one, but you tell me, "you're using
juvenile language," and I can only go, "Wait, you're the one who coined
'Matt's factory' to somehow get rid of my arguments and you're the one that
called me a Nazi." I don't know how much more juvenile you can get. You
write like a ten-year-old, Bo. Never developing a claim, or writing a
paragraph that's more than three sentences. Its like you have intellectual
ADD---and you get mad at _us_ for losing focus on the "real issue," whatever
that is (I have yet to figure out what issue you want to focus on, as
opposed to the "sidetracks"). If you want to accuse somebody of leaving the
field because they are "faced with overwhelming evidence," maybe you should
first take a look at "Clearing up Bo's intellectual mess," Wednesday, June
29th, parts I to III.
_________________________________________________________________
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee®
Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
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 : Sat Jul 16 2005 - 20:36:31 BST