RE: MD the Art biz

From: Erin Noonan (enoonan@kent.edu)
Date: Wed Jul 17 2002 - 20:29:32 BST


>>Glad to hear it. So can you tell this low level ignoramus just what you
>do suggest about reality?

Platt,

Hello King of False Accusations,
So we are going to switch from twisting around
words to reading into statements. (yawn)
No I have never thought of you as an ingoramus,
pretentious sometimes, stubborn,
and occassionally grumpy but never ignormamus.
Again what I have said is that i think liking is an indication of quality and
therefor reality but that does not equal reality is whatever you like.
When you go to the art museum how do YOU judge the quality of
paintings? I think your internal "like-o-meter" is the most
sophisticated tool we have to judge quality.
I don't agree with your nonchalant dismissal of it.

I am going to ignore your request until
you respond to my request responding to these three quotes.
I will list them for you again:

1)> PIRSIG: "Unlike SOM, the MOQ does not insist on a
> single exclusive truth. If
> subjects and objects are held to be the ultimate
> reality then we're permitted
> only one construction of things -- that which
> corresponds to the 'objective'
> world -- and all other constructions are unreal. But
> if quality or excellence
> is seen as the ultimate reality then it becomes
> possible for more than one set
> of truths to exist. Then one doesn't seek the
> absolute 'Truth.'
> One seeks instead the highest quality intellectual
> explanation of things with
> the knowledge that if the past is any guide to the
> future this explanation
> must be taken provisionally; as useful until
> something better comes along. One
> can then examine intellectual realities the same way
> he examines paintings in
> an art gallery, not with an effort to find which one
> is the 'real' painting,
> but simply to enjoy and keep those of value." (Ch

2)"Then he saw it. He brought out the knife and excised
the one word that created the entire angering effect
of that sentence. The word was "just." Why should
Quality be just what you like? Why should "what you
like" be "just"? What did "just" mean in this case?
When separated out like this for independent
examination it became apparent that "just" in this
case really didn't mean a damn thing. It was a purely
pejorative term, whose logical contribution to the
sentence was nil. Now, with that word removed, the
sentence became "Quality is what you like," and its
meaning was entirely changed. It had become an
innocuous truism."

3)Reality, which is value, is understood by every infant. It is a universal
starting place of
experience that everyone is confronted with all the time. Within a Metaphysics
of
Quality, science is a set of static intellectual patterns describing this
reality, but the
patterns are not the reality they describe."

MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
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 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:26 BST