From: Paul Turner (paul@turnerbc.co.uk)
Date: Mon Dec 27 2004 - 18:02:12 GMT
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.
Paul:
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
pattern.
Paul:
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?
Paul:
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
with.
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.
Paul:
I haven't had chance to give it a read yet but I'll take a look.
Regards
Paul
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries -
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Dec 27 2004 - 20:05:09 GMT