Re: MD The MOQ implies that there is more to reality than DQ & SQ.

From: Matt Kundert (pirsigaffliction@hotmail.com)
Date: Sat Oct 01 2005 - 23:56:47 BST

  • Next message: David M: "Re: MD The MOQ implies that there is more to reality than DQ & SQ"

    Hey David,

    David said:
    This monism, or sometimes non-reductive physicalism, contrasts with
    something key to the MOQ. The MOQ prefers to talk about SQ that exists at
    different levels, hence giving equal ontological status to SQ no matter what
    level we place it on with a non-reductive or emergent relationship between
    the levels. So that SQ is related to DQ/possibility in a comparable way no
    matter whether SQ is on the particle, molecule, cell, instinct, or cultural
    product level. The retention of physicalism or monism seems to contrast with
    this 'equality' of SQ in the MOQ. Although I would be happy to be a monist
    of a meaningless sort, to overcome dualism, but indicating a common
    source/substance that is simply incredibly plastic,closer to Aristotle's
    idea of matter, i.e. that which is open to all the possibilities of form.

    Do I contrast this correctly would you say?

    Matt:
    I would say not exactly. The heart of me describing pragmatism as a monism
    would be the _non-reductive_ part, sans any adjoining -ism. I see this as
    perfectly in line with Pirsig's system because Pirsig's system starts as a
    single "entity"---Quality. It doesn't start as a dualism between SQ and DQ,
    just Quality. He then suggests that the best way to begin describing
    Quality (which is another way to say "define" or "make the first
    metaphysical cut") is not the old subject/object cut or his tentative
    suggestion of the romantic/classic distinction in ZMM, but his new
    Dynamic/static distinction.

    I take his point in that section of Lila, along with his redescription of
    causation as "pre-conditional valuation," to be that no distinction one
    makes of Quality cuts reality at the joints, no cut is a hard, old school
    metaphysical cut of reality into distinct natural kinds (like the Platonic
    shadows/Forms cut or or the Cartesian mind/matter cut), but are rather
    practical distinctions made for specific purposes. Thus I take Pirsig to be
    an anti-reductionist, somebody who does not want to _reduce_ all Xs to Ys,
    but simply wants to sometimes describe Xs as Ys. Somebody who, instead of
    saying, "All Xs are _really_ Ys," will say, "Okay, for this specific
    purpose, it might be helpful to think in terms of Ys instead of Xs."

    This should strike people as paradoxical. After all, doesn't Pirsig reduce
    everything to Quality, everything to value? Well, he does, but I think the
    only reason it looks paradoxical is because he's using an older terminology,
    viz. the metaphyisical terminology. As I said before, from a _metaphysical_
    point of view, from the point of view of someone who wants to make hard
    cuts, pragmatism will look like a monism, just like Pirsig, because both
    refuse to make any hard cuts. And as everyone is well aware, Pirsig owns up
    to this very paradox when he says the Metaphysics of Quality is a
    contradiction in terms. And if I'm reading you right, this might be what
    you mean when you say, "I would be happy to be a monist of a meaningless
    sort, to overcome dualism, but indicating a common source/substance that is
    simply incredibly plastic." However, I would add that I take that monism to
    be meaningless precisely because its there simply to overcome dualism _and
    all other reductions_, so that on the other side looking for a common source
    or substance seems kind of quaint.

    (This is how I think people should take my suggestion about getting rid of
    metaphysics. I'm not suggesting we get rid of "defining," I'm suggesting we
    get rid of "hard cuts." The smell of paradox arises in Pirsig because the
    metaphysical terminology was developed to be "defining-as-making-hard-cuts."
      Pirsig uncouples "defining" from "hard cuts," but everything in the
    language still revolves around those "hard cuts," so it sometimes sounds
    like bad metaphysical-as-hard-cuts instead of innocuous
    metaphysical-as-defining. All I'm suggesting is that Pirsig can look less
    paradoxical if we use a different set of terms to describe what he's up to.)

    Matt

    _________________________________________________________________
    Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
    http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/

    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 : Sun Oct 02 2005 - 00:34:21 BST