From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Tue Nov 18 2003 - 19:16:37 GMT
Wim
I feel quite comfortable with Pirsig playing the metaphysics
game around an undefinable concept like DQ. The whole
point is to dance all around the concept of DQ, you can only
really see the dancing but somehow the dancing lets you
recognise the pleaces where you cannot tread. It is of course
like a negative theology.
regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wim Nusselder" <wim.nusselder@antenna.nl>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 7:11 AM
Subject: Re: MD When is a metaphysics not a metaphysics?
> Dear Matt,
>
> I'm not going to follow the whole of your discussion with Paul, but just
> where you refer to your earlier discussion with me. You wrote 17 Nov 2003
> 21:00:53 -0600:
> 'Wim ... wants to rehabilitate the word "metaphysics" by basically
> redefining it as "a systematic arrangement of your beliefs." ...
> I have no use for it because I already have a term that refers to the same
> thing: vocabulary.
> ...
> by substitution: Metaphysics of Quality is Organization of Experience.
> ...
> What causes me to pause is Pirsig's assertion that the Metaphysics of
> Quality is a contradiction in terms, that the other substituted title of
the
> MoQ is Definition of Undefined.'
>
> For me "metaphysics" is not any systematic arrangement of one's beliefs,
but
> a very specific one, guided by specific questions (which were incidentally
> inspired by your questions in an earlier life, when you defined in one of
> your first contributions to this list "metaphysics" for us). In my view
> "metaphysics" therefore cannot be substituted by "vocabulary" and "MoQ" is
a
> very specific way of organizing beliefs, by answering these "metaphysical"
> questions in a way which gives "experience" a central role.
> Are you sure that this couldn't be a useful redefinition of metaphysics
(and
> one that is quite close to Pirsig's way of using the word, even though
that
> is less relevant to me)?
>
> I always had the impression that Quality according to Pirsig consists of
two
> parts of which one (DQ) is undefined and the other (sq) IS defined. (I
even
> remember reading some quote where he said that explicitly. Was it in
'Lila's
> Child' or in his correspondence with Anthony as quoted in his textbook?)
> Where did you find Pirsig's assertion that a MoQ is a contradiction in
> terms? I guess it is in a (more rhetorical) context that doesn't really
> allow for your use of the statement.
>
> With friendly greetings,
>
> Wim
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
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 : Tue Nov 18 2003 - 19:32:38 GMT