From: Valence (valence10@hotmail.com)
Date: Fri Aug 01 2003 - 22:29:42 BST
Hey Bo and all,
B
> I'm not out to insult, just to do some logic surveying. Someone
> devoted to a religious faith would surely agree - any insist - that the
> Holy Scripture is a "description" of the inner reality, but as outsiders
> we see that it is one and the same.That's why I find your insistence
> on the description/reality ("ultimate" for good measure) a bit naive.
R
Sorry to be naive again, but I have no idea what this comment about
religious faith and holy scripture is supposed to mean. Why would an
outsider to a religious faith think that a holy scripture is 'one and the
same' as 'inner reality' (and what is this 'inner reality' you refer to)? I
don't consider myself religious at all (certainly not in any conventional
sense), yet, I don't think that any religious scripture is 'one and the
same' as any 'inner reality'. I must be completely misunderstanding you
here, please re-explain :-)???
> Rick
> >No Bo. "[The MoQ] simply restates the empiricists' belief that
> >EXPERIENCE is the starting point of all reality (emphasis added)."
> >Not inorganic patterns.
B
Once the MOQ premise is
> accepted, the staring point of the STATIC sequence is the inorganic
> universe...
R
Inorganic matter is the starting point of reality? And to think you had the
moxie to accuse me of practicing SOM :-). You want to get into some real
MoQ technicalities Bo? I'm game. Let's do it ;-). Technically speaking,
the first MoQ premise (ie. the first moral code) is 'the law of nature' by
which inorganic patterns triumph over chaos (LILA ch13 p183), which means
that the starting point of the MoQ is not the 'inorganic universe', or even
the STATIC sequence at all, but is rather 'chaos'. "Chaos" (I suspect) is
just more of Pirsig's jargon for pure, untamed, undivided, unpatterned
Quality. That is, once, as you say, 'the MoQ premise' is accepted (and
'premises' are, of course, ideas), the starting point of reality is pure
undivided experience (pure Quality) from which 4 static categories of
experience can then be drawn. It further holds that it is very good to
believe that the levels appeared in chronological order, starting with the
inorganic and culminating in the intellectual.
To put it all together: A 'metaphysics' is an intellectual pattern that
asks, in the broadest sense, "what is there?" To answer this question, a
metaphysics first has to ask how we know what there is. Then it can go
about dividing up that knowledge into categories. Pirsig believes that all
of our legitimate knowledge of what there is arises from our senses and
thinking about what our senses provide (LILA ch8 p113). By thinking about
what his senses provided him with, Pirsig realized that the metaphysical
question of what there is could be answered more coherently when one holds
the idea that Quality is the primary reality and everything else is a
sub-species of Quality. The contents of the universe (which obviously
include Pirsig's ideas) could then be categorized on the basis of those
sub-species of Quality (ie. dynamic/static, and the 4 static levels).
B
... to say that MOQ (where DQ is reside) - is a STATIC
> (intellectual) pattern is a negation of itself.
R
I think that this might be the precise point of dispute which defines our
larger disagreement. I don't think that DQ 'resides' in the MoQ. Rather, I
think the term "Dynamic Quality" is an intellectual place-holder for things
which evade metaphysical categorization.
B
> This is the impossible exercise of keeping both SOM and MOQ going
> AS METAPHYSICS inside the mind-intellect (which becomes "our
> mind" as in SOM) something that makes the MOQ a branch of
> SOM's idealism which claims that mind is the primary reality.
R
But the MoQ doesn't claim that 'mind' is the primary reality. It claims
that Quality is the primary reality (maybe it's time for you to head back to
MoQ kindergarten?).
B
> In the previous (July 21) message where you said
>
> > > The MoQ (just like everything else) is a *species* of value.
> > > It's a static, intellectual, pattern of value.
>
> I thought "everything else" included the SOM and that SOM (in your
> opinion) is about a value divided into subjects and objects ... which is
> not the case, but OK I may be wrong about (your opinion on) that.
R
I see it like this: From within the perspective of a Metaphysics of Quality,
everything is a subspecies of value, a subject-object metaphysics is a good
idea, and a Metaphysics of Quality is a better one. From within the
perspective of a subject-object metaphysics, value is code for subjective
preference, a subject-object metaphysics is the only good idea, and a
Metaphysics of Quality makes no sense at all.
B
> There is a book, a novel. Some time ago - this spring I believe - it was
> much talked about, a bestseller, long reviews etc. It's about life in New
> York after the known incident. Can't remember the author's name or
> title. Does this ring any bells for you or anyone else?
R
Actually, there's a bookstore i walk past everyday on my way to work which
has a window display that features dozens of books about the 9/11 attack and
its effects on life in NYC. If you can give me a little more to go on I'll
stop in and check it out for you.
take care
rick
Nothing has such power to broaden the mind as the ability to investigate
systematically and truly all that comes under your observation in life. -
Marcus Aurelius
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 : Fri Aug 01 2003 - 22:30:16 BST