From: jhmau (jhmau@sbcglobal.net)
Date: Thu Feb 13 2003 - 20:22:04 GMT
On 12 Feb 2003 2:35 PM "Matt the Enraged Endorphin" writes:
> Scott, Kevin,
>
> As Kevin's already correctly assumed, I do agree with the general thrust
of
> what Scott says. I think the confusion is that I think the "absolutist"
> interpretation of the MoQ, which Scott, Kevin, Jonathan, and I all eschew,
> is a very reasonable interpretation with ample evidence. So, I, too,
would
> wish that we grasp the MoQ as one context among many, not as the ultimate
> context from which answers can be churned out from, but I refrain from
> saying that it can't be turned towards absolutist ends.
>
> The main part where Scott and I disagree is that I think part of what
gives
> the absolutist interpretation some of its ammo is the use of metaphysics
to
> describe what we are doing when using Pirsigian language. Pace Scott and
> Wim, I don't think metaphysics can be usefully rehabilitated. I think
that
> if the Metaphysics of Quality doesn't suffer from Dewey's attack, then it
> can no longer be usefully described as a Metaphysics. Contra Scott, I
> don't think metaphysics is something that is inescapable. Whereas Scott
> would co-opt Sellars' definition of philosophy and conflate it with
> metaphysics, I would say that Pirsig (at his best, pace Platt and Scott)
> and Rorty are doing philosophy, but not metaphysics.
>
> So, I like it when Kevin calls Lila an "open diary." It is exactly the
> image I think we need to foster of Lila and the MoQ. Pirsig wrote out his
> at times quite metaphysical approach to coping with the problems of being
> an American in a globalizing world and we look on and pick up the tools we
> like from it, the private tools that turn out to be relevant to us. If it
> turns out that some of Pirsig's tools towards private self-perfection end
> up having public use, then we can literalize them and set them to work.
> But only time will tell on this count, and my bet is against it.
> Matt
Hi Matt, Scott, Kevin, Jonathan and All,
One of the tools Persig writes about are anecdotes leading me to the
conclusion that I know reality through an instinctive sensing. To me he
argues conclusively that SOM in its theory of knowledge called abstraction
created a subjective-objective division in existence. I followed SOM and
had a basic error in my thinking.
An absolute is something I cannot divide but only negate. In my attempts to
put together a theory of knowledge based on instinct I see three absolutes
which cannot be divided.
The wrong division of existence in SOM is unacceptable. A wrong division of
purpose by posing a material and spiritual reality with different purposes
makes the statement "I act!" not understandable. Dynamic Quality is
undefined and indivisible.
An instinct sensing reality seems to me to be a mystical faculty since in
its action it is outside my awareness.
Static quality as a pattern has a connection to my awareness and memory as
well as to my instinct. Sq is not an absolute. Quality is indivisible. A
connundrum!
The moral orders proposed by Persig seem to me to participate in existence,
quality, and purpose differently. I propose three brains for the different
instincts with one awareness.
I will keep pondering.
Joe
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 2.1.5 : Thu Feb 13 2003 - 20:21:35 GMT