From: Paul Turner (paulj.turner@ntlworld.com)
Date: Thu Aug 28 2003 - 17:40:58 BST
Hi Bo and all
In a recent reply to Bo's "Where does it end?" post, I repeatedly used
the argument that Bo's conclusions were at fault because of the false
premise that "metaphysics is reality". I wish to try and make my
argument a little clearer than I did in the reply.
When you don't distinguish between metaphysics and reality then what is
at the "rock-bottom" of metaphysics necessarily has to be at the "rock
bottom" (to use Bo's metaphor) of reality, they are one and the same.
For example, I believe that whatever it says about the fundamental
nature of reality, metaphysics is fundamentally a structure of thought.
So, from the premise of "metaphysics is reality", if the "rock bottom"
of metaphysics is "thoughts", the "rock bottom" of reality necessarily
has to be "thoughts" as well.
(I am aware that "metaphysics is fundamentally a structure of thought"
begs the question)
The whole purpose of separating out static and Dynamic reality is to
block the assumption that thoughts (which are defined as static) and
reality (which is both static and Dynamic) are one and the same, so by
equating metaphysics (a structure of thought) with reality, Bo defeats
the purpose.
So that's my argument.
However, on reflection, there is another way to answer Bo's complaints.
Empirically speaking, experience does not seem to come with a
pre-packaged set of intellectual explanations. Thinking therefore must
begin with assumptions from which everything else intellectual can
crystallize. When we try and say what those assumptions are we enter the
territory of metaphysics. When you get to the "rock bottom" of these
assumptions, it can be asked, why these assumptions?
Historically there have been many answers to this question ranging from
"the mind of god" to logical necessity and so on. Pirsig's answer to
"what is the nature and groundstuff of reality?" is "assertions of
value" and the answer to "why did he make that assumption?" boils down
to "because he valued it". So, the assumption that "the fundamental
nature and ground of reality is assertions of value" is itself an
assertion of value.
So in the MOQ, "thoughts" are reduced further to static intellectual
patterns of value where "value" is the "rock bottom" of reality.
Bo, this gets you out of the "Metaphysics of Assumptions" type absurdity
but whilst metaphysics is a subset of and ultimately patterns of the
same ground as the rest of reality, it does not work the other way,
reality is not a subset of metaphysics.
Metaphysics does not contain Quality, Quality contains metaphysics.
My head hurts, fundamentally :-)
Paul
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 2.1.5 : Fri Aug 29 2003 - 12:12:43 BST