From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Aug 31 2003 - 20:32:47 BST
Paul and all MOQers:
Paul said:
There you go then, taking into account Pirsig's statements such as the
one above, by your definition (as with Glenn), the MOQ makes no sense
because it allows more than one version of "common sense" to be kept.
dmb says:
Paradigm shifts don't bother me. A variety of pictures is only helpful in my
book. Paradox and mystery is fun. But I have to admit that I find it hard to
accept mutually exclusive claims. It looked like a logical train wreck. But
I know you're tired of this line of inquiry and I'm ready to move on too....
Paul quoted from Anthony McWatt's "Pirsig's MOQ":
"The MOQ puts an end to this ancient freewill vs. determinism
controversy by showing that both preference and probability are subsets
of value. As the distinction between subject and object becomes
relatively unimportant in the MOQ, so does the distinction between
probability and preference. There is no basic difference between mind
and matter with regard to free will, only a difference in degree of
freedom. Subatomic forces can express limited preferences too."
And Paul added:
Which is essentially what you were getting at when you described matter
as low level consciousness, I think? (Pirsig just doesn't seem to make
that equivocation).
dmb says:
Yes. That's exactly what I was getting at. "Subatomic forces can express
limited preferences too." He says the same thing about cause and effect. The
idea, I think, is that epistemology and ontology are fused in such a way
that neither materialism nor idealism can fully explain the MOQ. I mean, we
can alternate to deal with various aspects of it, but an even better
explanation fuses the two into something that is neither rather than both.
And it is in this way that cosmological evolution is not materialistic and
does not need to be abandoned.
Paul continued:
So if we accept "a migration of static patterns toward Dynamic Quality" as a
viable description of "evolution" then this Pirsig statement...
"...the universe is evolving from a condition of low quality (quantum
forces only, no atoms, pre-big bang) toward a higher one (birds, trees,
societies and thoughts) and in a static sense (world of everyday
affairs) these two are not the same." [Pirsig cited in Ant McWatt's The
Role of Evolution, Time and Order in Pirsig's "Metaphysics of Quality"]
...provides you with an empirically sound assumption for a viable system
of evolutionary morality based on an analogy of Quality rather than of
fixed Truth.
dmb says:
Based on an analogy of Quality rather than fixed truth? You lost me there. I
understand that evolution is a migration from low to high and that quantum
forces are not the same as birds, but then you lost me.
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 Aug 31 2003 - 20:35:52 BST