Re: MD A metaphysics

From: james marshall (
Date: Sat Aug 16 2003 - 12:10:51 BST

  • Next message: Platt Holden: "Re: MD A metaphysics"

     Good morning Michael and all,

    I consider MOQ as a tool to use for understanding rather than something to
    believe in. I am currently investigating a freedom of speech case up here
    in British Columbia. MOQ seems to help me sniff the moving cheese with an
    expanded olfactory capability.

    Deepthroat apparently said to Bob Woodward, "Look at the overall." The
    overall in MOQ is evolution. Or in Heraclitic terms, "how things change." I
    find a lot of Persig in the Fragments of Heraclitus. His idea of fire as
    the primary stuff makes a lot of sense to me. Consider Pirsig's references
    to updrafts and downdrafts in the presence of hot and cold.
    Overdetermination leading to the appearance of the opposite. That sort of

    I am intrigued by Pirsig's ubiquitous references to wind, water, lightning -
    the elements. The inorganic. Uh, correct me if I am a naive newbie here,
    but in the "overall" hasn't the human animal failed to tame the inorganic?
    And in the MOQ, isn't that immoral? Is there a "yeah but" factor at work
    here? A subtle joke, perhaps? Anyone care to scratch my itch?

    I can hardly wait to reread "The Lazy Man's Guide to Enlightenment" through
    the lens of MOQ. Has anyone done this? It might be profitable.

    As Heraclitus would say: Have an identical day.


    -------Original Message-------
    Date: August 15, 2003 7:45:00 PM
    Subject: Re: MD A metaphysics
    Hey all,
        I have been reading the moq thread for quite sometime after finishing
    and Lila. I must admit, however, I was somewhat intimidated to respond
    because of my lack of an overall view of the MOQ. This post by Joe did
    spark my interests a bit. Joe writes "Both of you seem to accept that a
    person only has a belief in words. Is it any wonder that you find agreement
    while disagreeing?". I think Pirsig tries to touch on the whole language
    barrier throughout his writings. It's important to point out the fact that
    much of contemporary thought has started to lean towards the subjective
    side. In my opinion subjective is all we really have as individuals. When
    I started studying philosophy I found that the largest obstacle for me to
    overcome was that of expression. In other words I had a good idea of what
    metaphysics(or other words, or philosophies) meant, but I couldn't express
    it. Perhaps I am missing something but it seems to me that it would be
    pretty hard to disagree about the definition of metaphysics. As I
    understand it metaphysics is merely the study of what is real. I guess what
    I am trying to get to is that most people have different definitions for
    every word they use. Because it's all pretty subjective agreeing while
    disagreeing makes perfect sense. I think though that this agreement to
    disagree is what sparks the dynamic in this forum. Am I completely off base
    here? This is my first post so correct me if I am wrong, but the
    differences that we all put up within a discussion is the catalyst for new
    thought. This is the crystallization that Pirsig mentions.
          I guess what I am asking for is clarification on how one does or
    doesn't believe in metaphysics. I can see it as a belief system, that one
    may not believe in metaphysics because they have already defined for
    themselves that everything around them is in fact real or not real, and
    therefore requires no further thought. On the other hand it seems that the
    literal term for metaphysics lays on a lower level, lower then belief, if
    that makes sense to anyone. It does indeed exist even if only one person is
    asking "what is real?". So how do can you not believe in metaphysics?
    Please understand that I have not taken the time the last few days to check
    all the posts on metaphysics, I just felt it was time to become part of this
    discussion. So like I said if I am off base let me know. Second, I am
    really glad to find so many people that have been impacted by Pirsig's
    writings and take the time to put that little seed into everyone else's
    thought process. Thanks for listening to my rant.
    >From: "Joe" <>
    >To: <>
    >Subject: MD A metaphysics
    >Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 10:35:06 -0700
    >Hi Platt, Matt, and all,
    >On15 August 2003 6:19 AM Platt writes: "Is it any mystery that I, as an MOQ
    >advocate, take a dim view of Rorty's philosophy?"
    >joe: a metaphysics describes the most basic things I know.
    >Platt, you have stated that a metaphysics is a belief system. I think Matt
    >also assumes that a metaphysics is a belief system. He does not believe in
    >Both of you seem to accept that a person only has a belief in words.
    >Is it any wonder that you find agreement while disagreeing?
    Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    Nov '02 Onward -
    MD Queries -
    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    Nov '02 Onward -
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Aug 16 2003 - 12:11:41 BST