Philosophy is traditionally based on "first principles". If one
resorts to rationality outside of this then the intention of Pirsig's
statement is clear. He does however say that nobody lives in a
vacuum, neither did James. The point is to create something that
tries to deny the boundaries of philosophy. He is possibly referring
to Western philosophy when he claims a distinction of his Value
presentation. As you know, the term Value can be seen in both
Buddhism and Taoism. Hermeticism also points to value, and this
philosophy is much much older than either of those, even if Taoism is
5,000 years or more old.
It is not uncommon for two presentations (James and RMP) to convene in
some areas since both are created by the human experience; something
that we all have in common. When he speaks of "sense", he means his
own sense, and an appreciation from that can only come from reading
his books as he thought of such a thing. This lies outside of the
words that he uses, and must be amalgamated without the words he
Quantum physics is yet another metaphysics, and he is pointing to the
relationship between his understanding and that of a quantum
physicist. It is alway good to dovetail such presentations of reality
in order to bridge the two. Each one can support the other. Since
the vogue of today is to see Science as a good presentation, it can
only help RMP to demonstrate the similarity. Both use "pieces of
puzzles" that are created by man. Some of these pieces can be
So, I appreciate it when RMP allows relationship between his writings
and other philosophers such at Heisenberg and James. It adds depth.
Mathematical formulae are no different from words and philosophical
logic. Both are creations of ours to provide meaning and place. I am
not sure what he means by arcane, but he is not a mathematician, so I
read that statement as his impression of what mathematics is. There
is nothing arcane about mathematics, it is being created all the time
in areas never dreamed of such as topology and infinite set theory.
Some things that are being created provide a whole new perspective of
reality. There is of course much mathematics that I do not understand
yet. But it too is a form of metaphysical presentation of reality.
For formulae do not exist outside our heads despite what Hawkins and
other claim. They are simply lost in their own realities, and who can
On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 2:04 AM, MarshaV <valkyr@att....> wrote:
> Here is a RMP quote, written in October 2005, for you to consider when you think about William James:
> I'll post again RMP's statement:
> "The Metaphysics of Quality is not intended to be within any philosophic tradition, although obviously it was not written in a vacuum. My first awareness that it resembled James' work came from a magazine review long after “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance” was published. The Metaphysics of Quality's central idea that the world is nothing but value is not part of any philosophic tradition that I know of. I have proposed it because it seems to me that when you look into it carefully it makes more sense than all the other things the world is supposed to be composed of. One particular strength lies in its applicability to quantum physics, where substance has been dismissed but nothing except arcane mathematical formulae has really replaced it."
> (A brief summary of the Metaphysics of Quality, October 2005)
> On Feb 25, 2012, at 3:36 PM, 118 wrote:
>> Dear Marsha,
>> I wish you would not disguise your own incoherent logic as a quote
>> from Watts. I can logically deduce that you have never read Watt, nor
>> perhaps do you ever plan to. Perhaps you have a cheat sheet next to
>> your computer containing the titles of books he has written; I have no
>> way of knowing how devious you are.
>> I think it would be suitable if you did not present your own
>> meanderings as somebody else's, this just makes you look ridiculous
>> and somewhat criminal. It clear that from your own misguided
>> representation of MoQ, that you have not read much at all. In fact, I
>> tend to believe that your attribution, of your own writings, to
>> somebody else is probably the rule. Just leave it as your own logic,
>> so that you do not undermine somebody who is now dead and cannot
>> defend himself; this is quite troubling to me.
>> If somehow you can present how your quote that you came up with
>> represents the metaphysics of Watts, then perhaps I can see some
>> function in it. But, I know that you will never be able to do this
>> since you have never read or listened to Watts. Your denial to show
>> such a presentation will simply demonstrate how my logic appropriately
>> results in the conclusion of your illiteracy.
>> For, I can tell that dmb has read quite a lot of James, much more than
>> I ever will, because he then explains such things and their relevance
>> to MoQ. But you? Well that is another story. If you care for any of
>> the authors that you say you represent, then please stop pretending
>> that your own little writings are theirs. I believe you have that
>> respect, although I may be misjudging you on this. We'll see.
>> On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 2:51 AM, MarshaV <valkyr@att....> wrote:
>>> "Of course, to say that life is just a gesture, an action without agent, recipient, or purpose, sounds much more empty and futile than joyous. But to me it seems that an ego, a substantial entity to which experience happens, is more of a minus than a plus. It is an estrangement from experience, a lack of participation."
>>> (Watts, Alan, 'The Joyous Cosmology')
>>> Moq_Discuss mailing list
>>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org >>> Archives:
>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ >>> http://moq.org/md/archives.html >> Moq_Discuss mailing list
>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org >> Archives:
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ >> http://moq.org/md/archives.html >
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org/md/archives.html Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.