From: Paul Turner (paul@turnerbc.co.uk)
Date: Sat Jun 04 2005 - 17:15:09 BST
Platt,
You misquote Pirsig in your post. It actually reads:
-----------------------------------------------------
Copleston: For that which appears, appears to a subject, within the ambit,
so to speak, of consciousness. We cannot go behind consciousness...
Pirsig: If by consciousness he means intellectual consciousness the answer
is, "Yes, we can. Value goes behind consciousness. It exists where there is
no intellectual consciousness."
Copleston: ...and analysis of it shows that it essentially involves the
subject-object relationship. In primitive consciousness subject and object
are virtually or confusedly present...
Pirsig: In the pre-intellectual consciousness of an infant value is present
and there are no subjects and objects.
Copleston: ...and they are progressively distinguished in the development of
consciousness until there arises an explicit awareness of a world of objects
on the one hand and of a self or subject on the other, this awareness of the
self being developed especially by the experience of effort. As, therefore,
the subject is present from the start as one of the essential poles even in
primitive consciousness...
Pirsig: No it isn't.
------------------------------------------------------
As such, I don't think SOL is bolstered by this excerpt.
Regards,
Paul
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 : Sat Jun 04 2005 - 17:19:28 BST