Hi Tuukka,

On 2/28/12, Tuukka Virtaperko <mail@tuuk...> wrote:
> Mark,
>> Hi Tuukka,
>> Thanks.  Let us remember that Pirsig is not a scientist.  His labels
>> were presented for metaphysical purposes and not for scientific ones.
>> Science is yet another metaphysics, and there is no reason to be
>> consistent within it when expounding on MoQ.  So this is really a kind
>> of red herring.
>
> Tuukka:
> No. Science is not "yet another metaphysics". Science is a subset of
> metaphysics. It makes no sense to have metaphysics in the first place,
> if this is not the case. This is not a red herring.

In my opinion as a scientist, science is as much a metaphysics as MoQ.
For it gives us a paradigm from which to understand reality.  The
reality of science is no more real than the reality of MoQ.  I am not
sure how you would consider science to be outside the realm of
metaphysics.  I operate in such a realm every day, and believe me it
is a metaphysics.  Are you perhaps speaking of a layman who thinks
that science is somehow more than that?  It's function is to provide a
structure of "what is", which is no different to MoQ.  Since you are
not a scientist, I cannot think that you really know what you are
talking about.  Don't you think that we try to put things together in
a reasonable way?  Isn't this what MoQ does?  Please explain to me the
differences between science and MoQ, besides that one has been worked
on by many in this modern world.

If Science is not a metaphysics, how would you classify it?
>
>>
>> Mark:
>> What Pirsig presents is a systems approach to understanding Quality.
>> Of course Quality is not these levels.
>
> Tuukka:
> Ugh... what do you mean? "Quality" is not equivalent to "these levels"?
> "These levels" are not a subset of Quality? What the hell... I know what
> you mean, but it can't be said. Don't try to say it (just advice).

Of course it can be said, Quality can be presented in any number of
ways.  And indeed it has.  Just look at the Tao Te Ching, the Buddhist
philosophy, the Hermetic philosophy.  Do you think that MoQ just came
out of nowhere.  So my advice is to put all these things into
perspective.  The thing special about MoQ is that it seeks to bring
Western thinking into the fold of much older philosophies.  Ask
yourself why Zen was part of the title of Pirsig's first book.  Ask
yourself why Pirsig saw Tao and Quality as being the same thing.  The
levels are simply a paradigm.  My other advice is for you not to get
too rigid with these levels, they will only lead you astray in your
understanding of Quality, imo.
>
>
>> Mark: They are simply presented to
>> convey an understanding of the way in which Pirsig sees the world,
>> which is not in levels in the end.  He could have used other levels
>> with equal effect, or not have resorted to levels at all.  I think it
>> is important to not get too caught up in the literal; otherwise we
>> would just be strict constitutionalists with little regard for change.
>>   Therefore the levels only serve as labels for something far greater,
>> and debate on their appropriateness should only revolve around what
>> these levels are meant to represent, not on their consistency with the
>> metaphysics of science.
>
> Tuukka:
> Ugh... I don't give a damn about how Pirsig saw the world. To be sure,
> "world" is definitely the only static thing he saw in LILA -- not
> "reality". If the MOQ has no significance except that of being the
> opinion of a certain Mr. Pirsig, it's obviously not enough.

Well, I believe it would be prudent for you to learn from what Pirsig
experienced first hand.  You only understand Quality as some concepts,
you have not taken yourself to where it is real at the expense of
normal reality.  Therefore, it is more than his opinion, it is his
reality.  Can you say the same thing?  Perhaps you are talking about a
different kind of quality.  Is this the case?
>> Mark:
>> Pirsig is also not an anthropologist, so his statements in that area
>> should be taken with a grain of salt.
>
> Tuukka:
> I've already used a shovel for the salt. Problem?

The statements are just statements.  What is important is what they
represent in terms of Quality.  Have you read his books with that in
mind?  Why would he say that intellectual thought began about 3000
years ago?  Have you thought this through or are you still on a
superficial read of Lila and ZAMM?
>
>> Mark:
>>
>> Remember that Pirsig is doing his best at explaining the
>> unexplainable.  Give him some slack.  Forget science, which is not an
>> important thing to grab on to in terms of MoQ.  For if you do hold on,
>> you will be sidetracked into something other than MoQ.  Quality cannot
>> be measured; it therefore lies outside of science, by definition.
>
> Tuukka:
>
> Pirsig is probably a demanding man, and so am I. Don't defend him,
> because I'm not attacking him. It would be appropriate to subject me to
> similar criticism than my current criticism of Pirsig, if I ever
> deserved it.

Well Tuukka, I have provided you with some "criticism" above.  I am
not quite sure what you understand about Quality.  If you say that it
MUST exist in levels, then you are stuck in the concepts used to
present it, and not addressing Quality directly.  For Quality existed
in ZAMM before the levels were even made up.  Like I said, it has
existed in metaphysics for 5,000 years or more.  What is Quality in
your opinion?
>
> RP is not science. RP is metaphysics. But since science exists, you
> don't say I don't need to know even a tiny bit about it? Or do you? That
> any scientific understanding is banned for me, because I'm a
> metaphysician? To be sure, I already know Finnish, so why did I study
> any English in the first place... hmm...

We create science with our heads, just like MoQ.  What do you mean it
"exists".  I am not sure what you mean by "need it".  Please explain.
Of course it is not banned, neither is MoQ.  As a scientist I am also
a metphysician.  Is MoQ therefore banned from me?  I got an American
citizenship when I was 18, therefore I studied English.  I have no
idea why you studied English.  Why did you?  Why do you even bring
that up, does it have something to do with Quality?

Cheers,
Mark
>
> -Tuukka
>
>
> 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