> Yes, Marsha, > Philosophy is traditionally based on "first principles".
And? "Traditionally"? You cannot be presenting an argument by authority? So what are you presenting?
> If one > resorts to rationality outside of this then the intention of Pirsig's > statement is clear.
What? If what? What are you suggesting, if anything? This statement says nothing!
I also appreciate that RMP allows relationship between his writings and other philosophers. Anthony presented a wonderful survey with many comparisons in his PhD thesis. I totally agree with you.
> 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.
"He is possibly"?
> 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 > provides. > > 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 > similar. > > 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 > blame them? > > Cheers, > Mark > > 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) >> >> >> >>>> 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