Tuk, Whenever we ask whether any idea is good or not, we must take into account the historical context - thus both materialism and idealism are good ideas in that they were good ideas at the time. Labels have connotations that evolve, therefore getting hung up on labels is a bad idea and you have to have a feel for the the "thing" that the label represents. It doesn't matter what you name the notes, if the music is good.
John On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 9:40 AM, Tuukka Virtaperko < m...@tuukkavirtaperko.net> wrote: > All, > > Due to the argument below, you have four options: > > * To concede that the MOQ isn't consistent. > * To concede that the MOQ isn't a good idea. > * To concede that the MOQ doesn't solve the mind-matter problem. > * To modify the MOQ. > > I recommend modification. > > Regards, > > Tuk > > > > > On 22-Oct-16 18:34, Tuukka Virtaperko wrote: > >> Dan, all, >> >> I wish to provide maximum clarity for my argument. The argument is about >> the logical consistency and logical implications of LC RMP annotation 67. >> The annotation includes the following statement: >> >> MOQ idealism: "The MOQ says that Quality comes first, which produces >> ideas, which produce what we know as matter." >> >> The concept of Quality is undefined. The notions of logical consistency >> and logical implications can only be applied to defined concepts. They >> cannot be applied to the concept of Quality. Therefore, even though MOQ >> idealism includes the concept of Quality, the notion of MOQ idealism is >> logically equivalent to the ordinary notion of idealism. >> >> MOQ materialism: "However, as if to further the confusion, the MOQ says >> that the idea that matter comes first is a high quality idea!" >> >> The MOQ classifies materialism as a good idea. But this implies that the >> MOQ cannot classify idealism as a good idea unless the MOQ is either >> inconsistent or not a single metaphysics. >> >> If the MOQ is inconsistent it doesn't solve any metaphysical problem. So >> we shall assume that the MOQ is consistent. >> >> If the MOQ isn't a single metaphysics it doesn't solve the mind-matter >> problem but instead merely reports that the problem exists. However, Pirsig >> thinks the MOQ solves the mind-matter problem. If this is true, the MOQ is >> a single metaphysics. So we shall assume that the MOQ is a single >> metaphysics. >> >> Therefore, idealism must belong to the context of not-good ideas. >> >> But the MOQ subscribes to idealism. >> >> Therefore, the MOQ is not a good idea. >> >> Regards, >> >> Tuk >> >> >> --- >> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >> https://www.avast.com/antivirus >> >> 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 >> >> > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > 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 > -- "finite players play within boundaries. Infinite players play *with* boundaries." 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