From: ian glendinning (psybertron@gmail.com)
Date: Tue Nov 08 2005 - 17:52:03 GMT
Platt, 2 comments inserted (belatedly) ... [IG] ...
On 11/3/05, Platt Holden <pholden@sc.rr.com> wrote:
> Hi Ian,
>
> [Platt]
> > Even Pirsig had to split Quality into Dynamic and static to create a
> > meaningful metaphysics. In fact, I think he said something about the
> > first cut being the most important one.
>
> [Ian]
> > I think you're close to the core point again ...
> > To me it's no accident he chose "quality" as the thing to split with
> > his first cut.
> >
> > It's very telling that we carefully avoid the word "concept" when
> > describing quality (at least when Mark's listening), and more
> > importantly the fact that quality remained a very nebulous / ephemeral /
> > intangible thing throughout Pirsig's development of his ideas. He chose
> > quality as his central idea and the location of his first cut, in direct
> > opposition to the traditional tangible split of subject and object. If we
> > ever pin down quality with a concrete definition we'll re-introduce the
> > problem of casting the separation in stone again.
>
> I'm not so sure the subject object split is tangible. I would ask: What is
> being divided by the subject/object division?
[IG] Me neither - I was saying this was traditionally seen as tangible.
> > As it is, with a the nebulous quality, and a dynamic / static split
> > which is similarly nebulous - how slow / fast stable / unstable do you have
> > to be dynamic or static - we'll never have that problem.
>
> There are plenty of other nebulous concepts like "love," "beauty,"
> "pornography" that cannot be defined, not to mention all qualia such as
> the taste of watermelon. So I'm not sure that Quality is unique or special
> in that regard. But, perhaps I missed your point.
[IG] Again, I'm with you. Long may they remain nebulous and, like
Quality, forever real.
> > BTW - when I said ontologies are our invention I did not intend to
> > imply they were an unnecessary invention. Thought is pretty
> > constrained without language to communicate it. I agree.
>
> The complex symbol system represented in language seems to be a
> particularly human skill, a skill that separates the intellectual level
> from the social level where grunts, whistles and gestures plus sheer
> dependence were sufficient to bind individuals to a social group. Thus, it
> was pretty much a "we" world before the blossoming of language . With
> language and intellect came release from the static "we" with the
> emergence of the dynamic symbol "I." Coincident with that release arouse
> the concept of freedom -- the highest good -- a concept still struggling
> to gain recognition against social level "we" pressures.
>
> Platt
>
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 : Wed Nov 09 2005 - 01:07:30 GMT