Diana McPartlin (diana@asiantravel.com)
Mon, 9 Feb 1998 11:21:38 +0100
Hi Peter and squad
peter@pzw1.resnet.cornell.edu wrote:
> A second pitfall is the straying from the middle path. I found myself
> trying to convince a good friend of mine (also a physics major who is
> swaying towards studying quantum mech. like me) that the Metaphysics of
> Quality kills platypi of Subject Object Metaphysics and that it is quite
> worth his time to read _Lila_. In the process of trying to convince him I
> found myself at a loss for a concise and simple explanation of the
> metaphysics of quality. This is mainly due to my lack of familiarity with
> the subject matter, but nonetheless I found myself wishing for the
> "principles of quality" which was being worked on here. This is, IMHO,
> the demand that we are trying to supply - we need to be able to concisely
> present a solid, well-grounded overview of the Metaphysics of Quality to
> the curious. Alluding to various authors and quoting certain other texts
> is just great, but when you're talking to someone after class you don't
> have that, all you have is the analogy of the computer and the novel, the
> dichotomy of mind and matter, and the example of the chemistry professor.
> Perhaps we should focus our energies on expanding this knowledge base.
I'm glad to see I'm not the only person who's found themselves at a loss
for words when trying to explain the MoQ to friends. It's really quite
worrying given the amount of time I spend studying it. Having more
examples to draw on would be a great help. You can't expect people to
swallow the MoQ in a oner, but you might be able to convince them
eventually if you keep coming up with different examples.
Of course you need to have a clear idea of the basic theory as well,
that's what we've been trying to develop in the principles. I feel that
we've reached a plateau in developing them though. We've made a lot of
progress but there are a few real sticklers and I don't see us solving
them in the near future. It may be that the principles were just too
abstract and I'm thinking that maybe if we talk more about the practical
applications of the MoQ we may be able to clarify the underlying theory.
My problem with trying to explain the MoQ has tended to be with the "so
what?" question. People never understand why I think the MoQ is
important. I guess it's because when I came across the MoQ I had already
decided that the subject-object metaphysics didn't work and I'd already
explored other world-views or weltbilds (the Germans have the best words
for these things). The MoQ was the Great Answer to me. But try telling
friends, hey look I've got the great Answer here, and they'll say, what
was the question?
Some time ago Bodvar said that he couldn't find a way to explain the MoQ
without mentioning the subject-object metaphysics first. At the time I
didn't think so but now I'm starting to see why. In order to convince
people that you've got a better metaphysics you need to show them that
there's something wrong with the one they're using first.
So I'd like to make a request for examples of what's wrong with the SOM.
I'll get onto it myself tomorrow, right now, work beckons.
Diana
-- post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:47 CEST