From: Steve Peterson (peterson.steve@verizon.net)
Date: Sat Dec 06 2003 - 02:41:13 GMT
Hi Matt, (Bo, Squonk, all)
> Steve said to Matt:
> Have you changed your mind and decided to play metaphysics? If not, I'm not
> sure how to have this conversation with you.
>
> Matt:
> I have three answers: One, some people define "metaphysics" as I define
> "philosophy," so it doesn't much matter to me at the moment whether you say
> that I'm playing metaphysics or not, as long as it isn't construed as my
> saying what's _really_ real. Two, if you define metaphysics in the
> old-fashioned, Platonic way, it doesn't matter too much to me at the moment
> whether you take what I say for your own purposes to be what's _really_ real,
> all the while keeping in mind that I don't think of it that way.
>
> And three, at the moment I'm doing what I would call biography, as opposed to
> philosophy. I think the point I'm making about discreteness is imbedded in
> Pirsig and so my argument for it is an explication of his philosophy, not my
> own.
>
> But we can discuss both points: is it in Pirsig? Is it good philosophy?
Steve:
Fair enough. I am interested in what you think Pirsig is about and whether
you think it's good philosophy, so we can talk.
As for a a fifth level, I'm not sure how you feel about static patterns that
are neither inorganic, biological, social, or intellectual. I reread your
last post and you seemed wishy-washy.
Can you give an example of the sort of experiences from which you infer
patterns that suggest a new species of value?
For me Bo's rebel pattern idea doesn't work, because I see the value that
supports the MOQ to be the same sort of value that holds any idea together.
I find truth in it which to me is a measurement on a scale for evaluating
intellectual quality.
The "code of art" idea for a fifth level is interesting, but I don't think
it works as a static level. I have experiences (all the time) that cannot
be defined merely in terms of inorganic, biological, social, and
intellectual patterns which may seem to suggest some other type of pattern;
however, the experiences I have which cannot be defined in these terms I
find I can't define at all. I think it makes sense to think of static
quality as the kind that can be defined and DQ as undefined. Since this
"code of art" can't be defined, it may better refer to dynamic/static issues
rather than a new type of static pattern which is the context in which
Pirsig coined the term.
So in short, I'm agreeing with your point that a new type of pattern must be
very different to count as a new type of pattern, and I am also suggesting
that the ability to define is key here as well.
But, defining a level higher than the intellectual level would be
impossible. Since definition is an intellectual activity (and the MOQ
itself is an intellectual pattern), trying to define a level higher than the
intellectual would be a lower level trying to contain a higher one. In
fact, this is probably the best argument against a fifth level. If we could
talk about it, it wouldn't be a fifth level.
Well, I think I've convinced myself anyway. No fifth level. I'm going to
go put that in my pipe and smoke it while I wait for someone to correct me.
Thanks,
Steve
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 Dec 06 2003 - 02:41:14 GMT