Re: MD SOLAQI confirmed?

From: Johannes Volmert (jvolmert@student.uni-kassel.de)
Date: Tue Jan 13 2004 - 22:15:42 GMT

  • Next message: David MOREY: "Re: MD More over postmodernism, hello reality"

    Hello Paul, Bo and all MoQ-Discussers,

    now I begin to see, where Bo's understanding of the MoQ and it's
    derivations differs from mine (and seemingly many others). I had never
    really understood, what excactly he means with his SOLAQI-concept. I and
    many others have had lots of arguments about his concept in the past ( I
    have reread yesterday parts of the discussion I had with Bo during that
    time in June of 2000 and later - 'Define the intellectual level', Fri
    16. Jun; 'Archaeology about dimension', 5. Dec ). In Bo's opinion it is
    impossible for the intellectual level as described by Pirsig, to
    accommodate more than one system of thinking. He views it to be
    exclusive, a 'closed party' so to say. It is therefore correct for him
    to conclude, that if SO-division holds the place of the intellectual
    level, the MoQ has got to be placed in the/a following level.

    Bo, your conclusion would be right - if your premises were. But apart
    from some logical reasons that contradicts them, Pirsig himself says
    expressis verbis, that [...] theMetaphysics of Quality does not insist
    on a single exclu­sive truth[...] (Lila, page 114, paperback - see also
    below). The MoQ is "only" an expansion of modern western thought and not
    a complete replacement of it. Besides there are some other systems of
    thinking - metaphysics - that compete with the MoQ, or are themselves
    part of the MoQ-basework (indian, asian). Yet they have to be asserted
    to the intellectual level. The main reason for me to refute your
    SOLAQI-concept was, that I could not see the MoQ being anything else but
    a pattern of intellectual value itself. It is of a very high rank, no
    doubt, but nevertheless still an intellectual pattern.
    Just guessing, I suppose that it was Pirsig himself, who partly induced
    this problem when using his 'box'-analogy, where he stated:
    "[... ] Whacko science. They were trying to lift themselves by their
    bootstraps. You can't have Box "A" contain within itself Box "B," which
    in turn contains Box "A." That's whacko. Yet here's a "science" which
    contains "man" [...] (Lila, page 62, paperback edition).

    In fact, we have then the logical problem, that Box A (MoQ) contains Box
    B (intellectual level as described by Pirsig), which in turn contains
    Box A again. While I find Pirsigs analogy in the given quote not very
    convincing, I don't see any severe problem in that sort of recursivity
    (spelling?) in this case. When thinking about thinking, this recursivity
    almost always occurs. I don't see any necessity to dwell on this problem
    any further and also I'm too lazy to so, by now.
    Alas, if not only Paul but even Pirsig himself fails to convince you,
    Bo, I don't see anything or anybody can do it.

    Regards, JoVo

    PS to Paul: I'm a great admirer of you writings. Surely belonging to the
    best of what has been contributed to this site

    Ref.:
    Pirsig (Lila, page 114, paperback edition):

    "This may sound as though a purpose of the Metaphys­ics of Quality is to
    trash all subject-object thought but that's not true. Unlike
    subject-object metaphysics the Metaphysics of Quality does not insist on
    a single exclu­sive truth. If subjects and objects are held to be the
    ulti­mate reality then we're permitted only one construction of
    things—that which corresponds to the "objective" world—and all other
    constructions are unreal. But if Quality or excellence is seen as the
    ultimate reality then it becomes possible for more than one set of
    truths to exist. Then one doesn't seek the absolute "Truth." One seeks
    instead the highest quality intellectual explanation of things with the
    knowledge that if the past is any guide to the future this explanation
    must be taken provisionally; as useful until something better comes along."

    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 Jan 13 2004 - 22:17:02 GMT