From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Mar 06 2005 - 00:59:53 GMT
dmb said to Sam:
...I don't see how the classic/romantic spilt or the subject/object split is
"metaphysically equivalent" to the static/dynamic split. (Pirsig) thoroughly
attacks one and abandons the other in order to have the third. So what does
it mean to say they are equivalent?
Sam replied:
What I mean is that they are each a primary slicing of reality. He is
replacing one split with another split, so my point was that they are each
the first move in a metaphysical system. They would not be metaphysically
equivalent if DQ is identified with the 'unsplit' reality (then the
divisions between SQ would be the equivalent of romantic/classic etc)...
dmb says:
Oh. Right. Each split divides Quality in two. They each take one first slice
into that undivided reality. In that sense they are the same.
Sam continued:
This is why I want to hold on to the idea of "Quality" as in some sense
separate from DQ/SQ, not necessarily as a third element, but to prevent the
reification of DQ. This is where I find Scott's language of 'contradictory
identity' helpful, so perhaps 'Quality is the contradictory identity of DQ
and SQ' would capture my view. Don't know if that's an accurate use of his
language though.
dmb says:
This is where you lose me - and Scott's assertions make no sense as far as I
can tell and so references to that will be of no help to me at all. What has
be baffled is this idea of preventing "the reification of DQ". What does
that mean? DQ is an intellectual pattern to be sure, but doesn't it refer to
that which is neither abstract nor material? Is there anyone who ever said
otherwise? I mean, I honestly don't know what the problem is, let alone your
solutuion. Its like the dangers of "hypostatisation". Where is it? Who is
doing it? What does it mean if they are prevented? Seriously. Please
explain. Maybe then I'll understand what prevents us from having the idea of
an undivided reality (Quality) and a divided reality (DQ/sq) at the same
time. Maybe I don't get it, but that seems as easy as chopping wood.
Sam quoted:
"My propositions serve as elucidations in the following way: anyone who
understands me eventually recognizes them as nonsensical, when he has used
them - as steps - to climb beyond them. He must, so to speak, throw away the
ladder after he has climbed up it."
dmb says:
How's the weather up there? From way down here it looks like people are
climbing around in all sorts of directions. Maybe it would be better to
leave those ladders out for others to use. Unless you seek solitude, of
course.
Sam said:
Great. I'm very comfortable with the idea of combining the transcendent and
the immanent as well (very incarnational). Am I thinking we're agreeing too
much here?
dmb says:
Agree too much? That's a risk we'll just have to take.
Actually, I think that we are far more alike than not. Not that we really
agree underneath it all, although its not impossible, but we both care about
the same things. We have radically different ideas about silly little things
like God and the nature of existence. But we're both really into it, like
alot of people here. That's what makes our disagreements so heated. People
get passionate about silly little things like that.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Mar 06 2005 - 01:05:39 GMT