Re: MD A bit of reasoning

From: Scott Roberts (
Date: Sat Oct 09 2004 - 05:12:09 BST

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


    > I don't know anything about Peircean triads, but I can tell that you
    > are disagreeing with the most fundamental postulate of the MOQ. When
    > Pirsig was faced with the dilemma "is the quality in the subject or the
    > object" he came up with a rather unique solution upon which he built an
    > entire metaphysics. This discussion group is about seeing where making
    > Pirsig's "Copernican inversion" takes us.

    And I'm saying that the Copernican inversion needs to be taken further. The
    treatment of intellect in the MOQ is a continuation of its treatment in
    SOM. That should be redressed. You have noted, I hope, that I agree that
    quality is in neither the subject nor the object. It is SOM that assumes
    that intellect is only in the subject. Earlier philosophy did not, for the
    most part.

      If you don't want to play,
    > fine. In the MOQ, all your talk about universals and particulars may
    > constitute high quality ideas. They just have nothing to do with the
    > MOQ. It is pointless to argue about whether Quality really does
    > precede subjects and objects. It is an intellectual postulate that you
    > either find useful or not.

    Since I find most of the rest of the MOQ useful (and play within its
    confines), but the bit at the end (how intellect is treated) not useful,
    shouldn't I see if I can patch up the beginning to see if the whole can be
    useful? In any case, my disagreement with the beginning is not all that
    big. It is really just digging a bit deeper into the fact that DQ must
    occur in the context of existing SQ, plus the observation that Quality is
    meaningless without appreciation of value. That does not mean that humans
    are the only appreciators. In fact, in the end what one gets is that
    Quality is its own appreciation. To put this all together, I suggest that
    what Quality divides into (conceptually) is a triad (sign, pattern, and
    interpretant), not a dyad (subject and object, or dynamic and static),
    though it still makes sense to speak in terms of dynamic and static. The
    fact that the triad is the shape of meaning should make it an especially
    valuable idea to the MOQ.

      If you don't and if you aren't interested
    > in seeing where making that assumption can take us, then you're in the
    > wrong place. I'm not suggesting that you leave, only that what you are
    > arguing may be irrelavent to a discussion group concerned with the MOQ.

    Since people respond, I have to assume they are interested, if only to tell
    me what a fool I am. Also, don't forget Nietzsche: "That which does not
    kill me makes me stronger". Responding to my criticisms should serve to
    instill deeper understanding.

    In any case, I'll need to unsubscribe in the not too distant future, for a
    while at least, so the discussion group can return its peaceful business.

    - Scott

    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 : Sat Oct 09 2004 - 05:15:24 BST