André, Erin, Platt, Horse
Seems like I opened some can of worms by my reference to various
(suggested) alternatives for Value (I forgot "love"!!!!!) and how these could
have been made into a Metaphysics of X if the same Dynamic/Static divide
had been postulated. First I confused Platt who rightly defended Pirsig's
original take and then André zooming in on Platt's statement that Quality is
something beyond "whatever you like", pointing to a passage from ZAMM
that seemingly says exactly that ...and Platt retorting:
> Thanks for the reference, Andre. The ZMM is from Pirsig's old SOM
> days when Quality was subjective and, as he said, "an innocuous
> truism," having little metaphysical importance. In LILA, Quality is
> Reality, a big leap from "what you like" and the idea that "anything
> goes."
I feel out of my depth with quick exchanges so I'll start with Platt's pointing to
Phaedrus of ZMM as different from Pirsig of LILA. This is valid in spite of
Erin's derisive laugh. Ph. was from SOM - where else could he be from?
There had been philosophers before him who had proposed solutions to the
mind/matter enigma, usually by postulating that "everything is mind", but no
attempt at a dynamic/static divide: Inorganic mind, biological mind...etc.
(Hegel for instance).
OK , then Phaedrus went through stages on his way to the insight that
everything is value and that even mind and matter are value "fall-outs", and
ZMM reflects these stages. I too have warned against using it as a MOQ
"guide" without caution, it is the story of how the quality idea was arrived at.
Now, Erin produced a quote from LILA:
> PIRSIG: "Unlike SOM, the MOQ 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 becomese patterns
> 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. One can then examine intellectual realities
> the same way he examines paintings in an art gallery, not with an effort
> to find which one is the 'real' painting, but simply to enjoy and keep
> those of value."
...obviously to back up the "whatever you like is value" even if I don't see the
immediate connection. The initial axiom of ANY system is what the creator
INTUIT as self-evident but it can't be proved. So the statement that
everything is value and Pirsig's demonstrations of it (Hot Stove f.ex.) are
convincing but no proof, yet "true" in a MOQ context, it MUST be true or it
all falls apart. The reason one accepts a system is if experience makes more
sense according to it than the competing system, and the MOQ makes
much more sense than the SOM ..IMO.
Conclusion: Dynamic Value is not whatever we like, rather that existence is
LIKING. The MOQ also postulates the known static levels and the inorganic
level includes no subject who likes. Even at the intellectual level existence
includes all patterns - not merely intellects somish subject surveying
objective reality. The biological NN craves nourishment, but the social NN
wants to be slim and rejects food, while the intellectual NN looks objectively
on things and eats some healthy stuff. My point is that "what we like" isn't
decided by SO-intellect's mind, but what the value levels compromise about.
Have I made sense?
Bo
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 - 16:02:26 BST