RE: MD Is the MoQ still in the Kantosphere?

From: Paul Turner (
Date: Mon Dec 27 2004 - 18:02:12 GMT

  • Next message: Phaedrus Wolff: "Re: MD Is the MoQ still in the Kantosphere?"

    Hi Sam

    Sam said:
    If the MoQ is ultimately grounded in some form of empiricism, then
    personal experience must play some part in the determination of whether
    the Quality experienced is static or dynamic. So my sentence above
    should be unpacked to read "Whether a particular pattern is EXPERIENCED
    AS DQ or not depends upon its relationship with the SQ surrounding it."
    I don't want to say that DQ is a pattern of its own.

    I don't think that DQ is dependent on static patterns, DQ is just the
    value sensed without (or prior to) particular reference to anything
    fixed. What is dependent on static patterns is whether or not one
    experiences the DQ that is always there.

    Sam said:
    Which is, though, what I think is logically implied by the converse of
    my argument. That is, if DQ is not context-dependent, then it becomes
    uniform and reified, and therefore, even if ineffable, it is a static

    DQ is just the direct experience of value, it is the liking before the
    "liked" emerges, the good before the "good thing" emerges. The things
    liked are the static patterns of these values - the constructions of
    value judgements, comparisons, relationships and correlations that begin
    in infancy and continue throughout one's life - i.e., subjects and
    objects. Once a static pattern has been created the pure value is no
    longer there because it is not contained within any pattern. The value
    that creates each pattern is always the same but the patterns it creates
    are dependent on the patterns that have already accumulated to become
    one's consciousness.

    Sam said:
    It seems to me that there is a confusion embedded in what Pirsig is
    saying here. To say "There is no difference in the liking when the
    liking is independent of the things liked" seems to me to be an example
    of what Wittgenstein described as 'language going on holiday'. I just do
    not understand what Pirsig is saying here. Can you clarify it for me?

    He is just restating the proposition he made in ZMM that quality is
    independent of subjects and objects and that everyone knows and agrees
    on what it is. The disagreement is about what quality is associated

    Sam said:
    There seem to be lots of conceptual knots here (they might, of course,
    just be in my own mind) but I think you'll be a very helpful
    interlocutor to try and unpick them. I hope you do get a chance to read
    the essay.

    I haven't had chance to give it a read yet but I'll take a look.



    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 : Mon Dec 27 2004 - 20:05:09 GMT