Hi Mark, Dan and all,
Both Mark and Dan seem to agree with my suggestion that the MoQ is
nothing but metaphor.
The MoQ even has its own special name for metaphors - they are called
"Static Patterns of Value". Note that here I depart with Dan's statement
that
>A metaphor is
>an intellectual pattern of value in Robert Pirsig's MOQ.
After all this time in the Lila Squad/MF/MD, I still don't fully get the
difference between "pattern" and "INTELLECTUAL pattern". I regard the
word "intellectual" as arrogant and superfluous, and I say therefore
that ALL patterns are metaphors
Some of you will recall me saying that DQ isn't reality, but the
precursor of reality. My understanding of the MoQ's ontology is that
reality comes about when DQ is REALized as Static Patterns, i.e. as
metaphors.
OTOH, the ontology of materialism says that reality is composed of
material things, a view criticised in an interesting article "Where
Newton went wrong" (
http://www.cyberlife-research.com/articles/newton.htm ) cited by Peter
Lennox in MoQ-Discuss.
In the on-line article, Steve Grand says of our materialist obsession:
<QUOTE>
This is reflected (or perhaps compounded) by our strangely pejorative
use of language. For some reason "material facts" are good, while if a
thing is "immaterial" it is irrelevant. Likewise, "tangible assets" are
better than "intangible ones" and "substantial" means something
positive, while "insubstantial" is derogatory. Even the word "matter"
carries emotive baggage when we discriminate between things that matter
and things that don't!
But suppose we've got it all wrong. Suppose the distinction between
matter and form is false and misleading. Suppose tables and chairs are
made of the same "stuff" as minds, rather than the other way around.
</QUOTE>
This may lend credence to the claim that the MoQ represents an expansion
of (materialistic) rationality.
According to the MoQ, patterns of substance are just a subset of
patterns of value, i.e. a special sort of metaphor greatly valued by
scientists.
That's all very fine, but DAN says:
>The embodied metaphor of language cannot be analyzed further, for who
is
>it that can step outside of language to do the analyzing? Therefore, it
>would seem any hope of uncovering a catechism of the MOQ in this
>intellectual fashion is doomed to failure.
MARK disagrees:
>I think we can indeed analyze metaphor further, and can do
>so 'inside of language', which was the crux of my topic
>suggestion for this month.
I agree with both Dan and Mark!!!!!
The nature of language or any other symbolic system is that it is
infinitely extensible. One can step outside of yesterday's language into
a shell of new language that becomes part of the language of today.
Thus (to agree with Dan), the language we step out of is yesterday's.
But (to agree with Mark), the language we remain inside is today's.
However, when Mark continues:
>The moral framework of the MOQ
>better allows for the analysis of intellectual patterns in
>terms of their origin and evolution...
I again want to drop the "intellectual" word. By recognising the
infinite extensibility of metaphor, we allow for evolution and emergence
of new patterns.
> (Is this not Pirsig??)
Perhaps, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the MoQ has any
exclusive claim on the idea. IMO, the ongoing expansion of language and
metaphor underscores the entire human experience.
Jonathan
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:26 BST