LS Re: Explain the Dynamic-Static split


Bodvar Skutvik (skutvik@online.no)
Thu, 18 Jun 1998 20:20:54 +0100


Tue, 16 Jun 1998 17:49:29 +0000
glove <glove@indianvalley.com>
wrote;

> hello all,
 
> being new here i am sure i have missed a great deal of the discussion so
> far. be that as it may...
....snip.............

 
Welcome to the Lila Squad Glove.
(What does that name symbolize?)

Your language observations are correct - to a point. Too bad that
there is no modern day equivalent of Latin which, among the learned,
weren't spoken with any particular pronunciation (nobody knew how the
old Romans sounded). Well, English has no correct dialect any longer
either.

You don't agree with Pirsig regarding the music example, and may well
have a point there. I have my own disagreement too and that's about
the statement that once you get yourself a new car the road seems to
fill up with that particular model. My experience is the very
opposite, but this has nothing to say for validity of his Quality
idea.

Your point with the language example was that everything is subjective
including time and space - the lot. You seem to be at the same stage
as Phædrus of ZMM was (I did also experience such a phase), but it is
no stable position, taken to its natural conclusion it ends in
solipsism: The world is "product" of my mind.....every last bit of
it...as P. wrote before his breakdown. My own development took much
the same course as yours: EVERYTHING IS LANGUAGE! I can still recall
the absolute certainty of it all. It was a revelation, but no-one
understood what I was talking about. Finally I understood that I
better shut up, and until ZMM I believed I had been slightly mad. What
a relief it was!!

The irony of it all is that it is the Subject/Object metaphysics which
DEMANDS one out of two extremes, and it was the untenability of both
the subjective and the objective horn that made him conceive the
Quality idea. For myself back in the sixties I didn't know of any
alternative; it was the way reality had been created, but I fail to
understand how you in 1998 - after reading LILA - can state the above
as a fact. The very essence of the MOQ is that it rejects both
alternatives of the Subject/Object metaphysics. Rejection of the
objective is a trite exercise, so has dozens of idealist philosophers
done. It is the rejection of the subjective which is the stroke of
genius and makes the MOQ unique.

Enough for a welcome, hope you stay on.

Bodvar "Bo" Skutvik
 

 



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:21 CEST