From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sat Jul 26 2003 - 20:29:50 BST
Bo:
Chimps and Gorillas are both biological patterns, but Subject/Object
Metaphysics and Quality Metaphysics are incompatible - like oil and
water. Pirsig says the S/O divide exist inside the MOQ in his known
manner, but not BESIDE it as a metaphysics!!! It's the strange way
you define a metaphysics - as if just another stray thought - that
grates my Quality nerve. It claims to be the way reality IS!
dmb says:
Oh, I see. I didn't realize that you're a man of such faith. No wonder we
can't seem to agree about this. I take metaphysics to be merely a branch of
philosophy, not reality itself. Sorry if that bugs you.
Bo:
I know your answer "The MOQ the better one" ...which is correct, but
the value increments are BETWEEN the levels not inside them. (Stop,
hold your fire!) Take biology for example. A mammal is a more
complex organism than a reptile, but when it comes to biological
survival the latter is best. The "lower" patterns are most genuine
biology, but the said value spawned biological growth until complexity
was so great that one of its uppermost patterns took off ...on what
became social purpose. And this goes for all levels.
dmb says:
I know. You think the MOQ is different to be at a whole new level. I
disagree. It seems obvious to me. The MOQ uses the same data as does SOM,
respects empiricism, rationality and clarity. The difference between them
seems far less than the difference between a plant cell and a chimp, which
are both on the same level.
Bo:
You are right, one CAN have any pattern as long as it is static, but the
"thought-intellect" has no static character. The reason is of course that
"thinking" is a facet of the dynamics called DQ. Saying that the MOQ
is an integrated part of one of the its own STATIC levels violates two
principles: what is the dynamic is not static, and that of a smaller
container incapable of containing a bigger.
dmb says:
Thought-intellect has no static character? Thinking is a facet of DQ? Huh? I
honestly can't make any sense of that. As to the violations of principle,
which I can only BARELY understand... On the problem of containers, I'd just
say that the MOQ tries to describe the world and all we know about it in
terms of levels of static patterns. Why should that description be exluded
from the world? Of course the world is much larger than any description of
it. I fail to see how this violates any kind of principle or logic. The
answer to the other problem isn't very different. The MOQ is a static
description of a dynamic reality. The reality is dynamic, but the
description of it NEEDS to be static. Otherwise we would not have anything
about which to disagree.
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 26 2003 - 20:31:13 BST