Hi Bo:
Bo:
> Thanks for treating my theses seriously, you really make an effort
> to understand ....and you do understand.
Platt:
Thanks. I thought I did, but I had to put it in my own words and then ask
for your confirmation before I could be confident of being on the right
track.
Platt: (before)
> > "Existence exists" is the initial undefinable, unprovable premise of SOM
> > metaphysics--a premise that is morally barren. In contrast, Pirsig's
> > initial premise for the MOQ is "Quality exists," ADDING to plain old
> > morally-neutral existence a moral necessity because "a world from which
> > value is subtracted becomes unrecognizable." Whether a metaphysics begins
> > with an assumption of existence or an assumption of Quality, then, and
> > only then, can come the required first division, "or get out of
> > metaphysics entirely." The first division for "existence" is
> > subject-object. The first division for "Quality" is dynamic- static.
BO:
> Every time this Quality/DQ-SQ issue comes up I have a knee-jerk
> reaction because it evokes another Quality that the Quality/DQ-SQ
> is just one possible analytic cut of - and another and another ad
> ifinitum, the (/)"slash" always moving to between the first Quality
> and the subdivisions. This may as Angus pointed to be a
> "book/show" (words/reality) effect. A dynamic "ocean" divided into
> static waves leaves the 'DO' ocean and the DO/so identical. But
> then ....words/reality!! ...it smacks of good old SOM!
Platt:
I still need some help on this. If I say the Universe is divided into living
things and nonliving things, I usually don't find it necessary to evoke
another Universe in which the first Universe is included, ad infinitum,
like an endless Russian Doll. I do recognize, however, that logic has
its limits. I suspect you may want us to acknowledge those limits, i. e. ,
the old paradox that words cannot describe reality because words are
part of the reality they describe. Or more simply, in our attempts to
describe reality, something always gets left out. Or to evoke a Whole,
you must simultaneously evoke something beyond for the Whole to
take shape as a Whole. Is this somewhat closer to your point? Or am I
just adding further to my own confusion?
Platt (before)
> > My point is that the only difference I can see in the pattern of
> > initial steps required for any metaphysics is Pirsig's "out of the
> > blue" assumption that existence contains a moral component, or better,
> > morality is existence itself.
Bo:
> Now, this is an important observation (concession?) The Quality
> leap can't be seen as another Aristotelian-metaphysical screw ...or
> Hegelian dialectic synthesis, it is something unheard of: A leap.
> How true!
Platt: (before)
> > Is this assumption what you mean by the MOQ being a 5th level? That
> > this assumption is an absolutely necessary level at the top for the
> > other moral levels to follow? That without this "leap" you might as
> > well fold up the MOQ tent and go back to SOM?
Bo:
> Yes, I think this catches it beautifully. I don't insist on a
> established 5th level, but the "art code" indicates that there is a
> growth potentiality beyond, and that is where the leap landed
> Phaedrus in its time. This is an enormous issue with so many
> angles to it that it looks a maze, "solipsism" the most ominous cul-
> de-sac. I have written a draft on it for Angus and ...was it DMB who
> had a entry on it? ..which will be posted soon.
Platt
We are 99% "in cohoots" as the old saying went when people agreed
with one another. (Maybe a Norwegian root?) My own "leap" as
everyone knows by now is Beauty, a close cousin of Quality with an
aesthetic spin. Thanks for your patience. Very much looking forward to
your next post on this topic.
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 - 16:01:51 BST