Hi Squonk:
> I feel you are misleading yourself.
> The MOQ is a Copernican revolution and you have to go with this.
> Are you hanging back Platt? ;)
> Here is what i mean:
>
> The Metaphysics is the title of a collection of works attributed to Aristotle.
> The Physics is also as above.
> Metaphysics deals with first cause; Prime mover, and has a theological tone.
> Physics deals with what exists, which is substances.
>
> The MOQ changes this:
> Metaphysics now deals with Dynamic Quality.
> Physics now deals with static patterns of quality.
> Cause and substance have been abandoned as a truth dominant paradigm.
> Dynamic and static value, (quality/moral, all synonyms) replace as quality
> dominant paradigm.
>
> Therefore, since Pirsig developed the MOQ, science deals directly with
> quality/values/morals.
> Anything we once viewed as substantial is now viewed as moral: A TV set is a
> moral entity; the more so if it works very well.
> So, static patterns of quality, existing in a relationship with each other
> and primarily with DQ is now the basis for science.
> The excellent move forward here is, of course, that relationships that were
> once ignored because they are not substantial, i.e. societies, can now be
> examined scientifically.
>
> All this is either explicit or implicit in Lila.
> Stop quoting and start thinking.
Your last line is unnecessarily patronizing. Recall that you pointed to
Pirsig quotes, the last two paragraphs of Chapter 12, in response to
my inquiry as to where Pirsig said that the MOQ is a science. While I
agree with you that the MOQ is revolutionary and that reality is Quality, I
disagree that qualifies the MOQ as a science in the widely accepted
meaning of that term.
> > Re. Biological attack: Nope, it's a struggle between two social patterns.
> > Degenerate Christians V fundamentalist Muslims. Religions are a moral code
> > conferred by a deity. A biological attack has more to do with sexual
> > selection, territories, etc.
>
> Freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights are not
> products of degenerate Christians. They are products of intellectual
> values as Pirsig clearly states. As for biology, when Pirsig writes
> "Society can handle biology alone by means of prisons and guns and
> policy and military," he's not talking about sexual selection.
>
> US values are democratic, and democracy is an intellectual pattern of value.
> I apologise for arguing with you Platt.
> However, US citizens don't live in a democracy because its leaders are bent.
> In a true democracy, what are the chances of a son becoming president within
> a few short years after his father?
> Democratic dynasties?
> Bush, Kennedy et al.
> Come on, the US a democracy? Pull the other one!
> Only green backs and influential friends get you to the White house.
Please don't find it necessary to apologize because arguing is the way
we learn from one another. Technically the U.S. is a democratic
republic. My point was more about the freedoms guaranteed in the
Constitution that Pirsig specifically mentions as intellectual patterns. I
disagree with your assessment of how Presidents get elected, but fail
to see how this relates to the MOQ except in the most abstract sense. If
you don't like something you can always say it lacks Quality, but that
hardly moves the discussion forward.
> > Re. Absolute truth. Science has an in built eraser, religion does not;
>
> If you have an eraser and are willing to use it, you are not a purveyor
> of absolute truth by definition.
>
> I agree with you Platt.
> Science has had to deal with so many paradigm shifts that it now implicitly
> recognises a more pragmatic approach in that current theories are provisional.
> However, science still claims a special status in that it alone an explain in
> truth terms. The phrase, 'Argument to best explanation' implicitly recognises
> the higher status of value, (best) in scientific endeavour?
> The MOQ places value at the centre of science in that everything it explores
> are static patterns of value.
> Quality is the only truth it would seem?
No. The MOQ, like science, is a high quality intellectual pattern. In the
gallery of intellectual patterns I would choose the MOQ as the one I like
best, but recognize that a even better pattern might appear in the
gallery some day.
> > Re. Metaphysics. I understand the distinction between physics and
> metaphysics.
> > The MOQ is a contradiction of sorts and that is why we may be able to base
> > science upon Quality rather than Truth.
> > Plato made the mistake of insisting upon a form of truth, and Aristotle
> > embodies this in his theory of substance.
> > If science has an in built eraser, then maybe one day we can place Quality
> at
> > it's heart?
> > Let's not insist that static terms such as, 'Science' can never change
> their
> > meaning?
>
> Sure, science can change its meaning if everybody agrees. Until then,
> we should stick with the common meaning so we can understand one
> another.
> >>
>
> The common meaning has been over thrown ever since the publication of Lila.
> Don't hang back!
I would love to agree with you, but find your belief that the common
meaning of science has been overthrown is based more on a wish
than a fact. About as far as I can go is to say that the MOQ has
furnished us with a new pair of spectacles with which to view the world.
That in itself is a stupendous accomplishment, equal to Einstein's
relativity theory.
Believe me, Squonk, I share your enthusiasm for the MOQ. We
disagree only on minor points it seems.
Best,
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
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 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:31 BST