From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Fri Feb 13 2004 - 19:03:44 GMT
Hi
I see my current metaphysical position as this,
how close to Pirsig it is I'm not sure:
Experience=existence=what is real
Therefore there is no appearance/reality distinction
You can divide experience into DQ:SQ
or freedom/creativity : constraint/patterns/limitation
Freedom/creativity is what makes SQ possible.
DQ pours forth everything that is. DQ is the reality of the
possible, it is greater than what passes through the present into
the past. This is in fact a definition of freedom. Freedom=having choices,
having many possibilities/potential.
SQ is a very strange aspect of our experience. It is what repeats,
it is the Same, it comes again. It is patterned, it has symmetry.
I suspect that this capacity of reality to repeat has something to do with
the
past. The past is a possible source for constraint. Because the now is
always an event, it is the collapse of the wave function, it is the collapse
of possibility into an actual happening, a choice taken. Whan you marry
Sue you annihilate the possibility of marrying Jane or Jay or Jill.
This has a big effect on all your future possibilities/options.
Now when you take a look at all this SQ as a whole you can construct
levels as Pirsig does. Based on history/evolution/complexity.
Unlike the old Greek search for substance & archetypes it seems it would
be more accurate to see SQ as developing and changing. In a way there is
an interaction between DQ and SQ. Unlike the idea that there is a horse
archetype that underlies the appearance of a particular horse, we see a
complex construction and development of a SQ pattern that becomes
a pattern that we now call a horse but can move on and develop into
something else, which is what the evidence of evolutions seems to tell
us actually happens. We need a metaphysics that makes both dynamic
creativity and static/form/duration plausible.
Any thoughts?
regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Turner" <paulj.turner@ntlworld.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2004 10:43 AM
Subject: RE: MD Objectivity, Truth and the MOQ
> Hello David
>
> David M said:
> This is so good I am going to get it printed on a t-shirt. I strongly
> suggest we adopt this. Object implies something that can be an object of
> consciousness.
>
> Paul:
> Thanks for the kind words David. Yes, I think the terms "subject" and
> "object" have too many meanings which breeds confusion, as is evident on
> this forum.
>
> David M said:
> Let's stick to high or low quality static pattern from now on, if anyone
> says subjective or objective let's paste this paragraph up. This is
> exactly why under SOM objectivity has become associated with the
> quantitative analysis that applies well to the first two ontological
> levels but not the second two. Clearly there is a form of quantitative
> knowledge that is easier to reach agreement about that applies best to
> the 2 lower ontological levels. I would suggest that it applies badly to
> the 2 higher levels due to the extra DQ manifesting on these levels and
> therefore the near impossibility of doing controlled experiments. So
> long live good and bad static patterns in all their cultural
> mainfestations and down with confusing the value and reliability of
> knowledge with the ontological levels.
>
> Paul:
> Exactly my point.
>
> David M said:
> Paul do you agree with me that this acceptance of ontological levels is
> where you part with the anti-metaphysics of pragmatism, and follow a
> path of a radical and unique metaphysics?
>
> Paul:
> As Matt's post on this thread states, pragmatists agree that there is a
> clear difference between rocks and ideas but steer away from the word
> "ontology" and therefore "metaphysics." In this sense, the MOQ is a
> departure from pragmatism. In another sense, I think the MOQ levels are
> a pragmatic categorisation of experience justified by having high
> intellectual quality rather than a correspondence to an independent
> metaphysical reality. I think the primary static/Dynamic division
> enables the MOQ to be pragmatic and still make ontological claims and
> this may make indeed make it a radical and unique metaphysics. I've said
> before that it may be the forerunner of a new movement called "valuism."
>
> Regards
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> 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 : Fri Feb 13 2004 - 20:50:24 GMT