RE: MD A bit of reasoning

From: Scott Roberts (
Date: Fri Oct 08 2004 - 06:19:13 BST

  • Next message: ml: "Re: MD A bit of reasoning"

    Chuck, Mel,

    [Chuck:] Is the word "Quality" truly insufficient when relating to the
    sunset? Isn't
    > the "Wow Moment" an example of dynamic quality or dynamic good and your
    > appreciation of the sunset every moment after that initial "Wow Moment"
    > simply good static quality?

    [Scott:] That's the MOQ view. My point is that there is no beauty in a
    sunset without appreciation of the beauty, or without a system of sunsets
    within which the particular beauty of that sunset stands out. So just
    saying "there is Quality" is insufficient.

    > Isn't "Quality" buttressed with "Intellect" just "static quality?"

    I prefer to think of there being Dynamic Intellect and Static Intellect,
    which are just other names for DQ and SQ. (And I need to be clear that this
    is not my interpretation of the MOQ, but a difference view than what the
    MOQ holds.)

    > Isn't "what comes before..." simply apriori? That's the "wow moment"
    > The cusp of reality? Being in the here and now? Again, that's the
    > Quality.

    Is there a "what comes before" that is somehow totally simple, just pure
    DQ? I say no. Without the triad there is no value. However, where I agree
    with the MOQ is that without the value there is no triad. So where the MOQ
    says the value is prior to the triad, I say that each requires the other,
    so one cannot say that one is prior to the other. What Zen says depends on
    who you talk to.

    > Sorry to butt-in.

    No problem,

    - Scott

    > [Scott prev:]> > Yes. The trouble is that the word 'Quality' is
    > unless it is
    > > > buttressed with a word like 'Intellect', where Peirce's semiotic
    > > > triads come more obviously into play. There is no value unless there
    > > > are particulars AND universals AND interpretants, where each one
    > > > exists only
    > > in
    > > > relation to the other two. If you've got relationships or forms, and
    > > you've
    > > > got value, then you've got intellect. But see below about the word
    > > > 'intellect'.
    > >
    > > mel:
    > > This is not about Peirce or his conceptions.
    > > It is about what comes before...
    > [Scott:] If you are referring to so-called immediate/pure experience, it
    > about that. If I say "Wow! That sunset is beautiful", while it is true
    > the beauty occurred at the "wow" moment, and I am only thinking of that
    > beauty in the "That sunset is beautiful" moment, that doesn't mean there
    > no Peircean triad in the "wow" moment. There was. There had to be me and
    > sunset, and the general system of colors, shapes, and so forth, for that
    > "wow" moment to occur. If any one were missing, there would be no value.

    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    Nov '02 Onward -
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Oct 08 2004 - 07:56:49 BST