From: Erin N. (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Feb 01 2003 - 22:24:39 GMT
THE IMPLIED MEANING OF VALUE IS ONE OF PREFERENCE.
A consistent pattern of preference sounds
more fitting of what Jon is arguing
then what you are arguing.
PIRSIG: The only difference between causation and the value is that the word
"cause" implies absolute certainty whereas the implied meaning of "value" is
one of preference. In classical science it was supposed that the world always
works in terms of absolute certainty and that "cause" is the more appropriate
word to describe it. But in modern quantum physics all that is changed.
Particles "prefer" to do what they do. An individual particle is not
absolutely committed to one predictable behavior. What appears to be an
absolute cause is just a very consistent pattern of preferences.
>If truth is always personal and relative, why does Pirsig use the word
>"absolute" in a moral context? Do you think he made a mistake?
>Consider the following from Chap. 9: (Emphasis added so you won't
>miss the absolutes
Look at your language Platt lol... if truth is
always personal and relative.
Where was that said? As usual by nobody but you.
All the strong language you give are about the ideas within the MOQ
but where does he use strong language about the MOQ in its entirity.
>Mistake, mistake, mistake? Rhetorical exaggerations? Maybe. But I
>doubt it. Pirsig is saying it's possible for more than one set of truths
>(absolutes) to exist. The MoQ represents one of those sets. Science
I am not clear how you jump from set of truths to
>In any event, I had to smile at your implication that it would be
>absolutely wrong to argue that Pirsig misinterpreted Pirsig. Or is that a
>"provisional" judgment on your part? :-)
Again you have to add words like "absolutely
wrong" to other people's statements.
Notice its only you who likes writing in this
I wrote that as a more of joke to suggest that YOU
Can you consider the possibility that
Pirsig slightly EXAGERATES all three characters
to make them clearly representative of the level
they are supposed to.
I don't think Pirsig ever suggests to take
MoQ in the absolute sense.
Is it possible that Phaedrus
could be representative of Pirsig's opinion
of MOQ at a particular point in his life but
changed his mind and wrote in retrospect.
So many possibilities that I can't just can't
accept your opinion as Pirsig's.
I even consider the terrifying thought that
Pirsig does suffer delusions of grandeur like
you and thinks that he can't be wrong (but
that usually doesn't last long thank god).
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - email@example.com
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Feb 01 2003 - 22:16:51 GMT