Re: MD Pirsig and Peirce

From: Scott R (
Date: Tue Aug 19 2003 - 04:08:36 BST

  • Next message: johnny moral: "Re: MD Intersubjective agreement"


    > Well, no. Imagination, to Coleridge, is in contrast to the
    > "understanding and the senses" referred to in the quote above. It is
    > precisely not static, but (in MOQ terms) involves DQ. For Coleridge,
    > the S/O divide is a case of the DQ/SQ divide, not a static idea. This
    > is where Squonk is misguided in saying "there are no subjects and
    > objects in the MOQ". If that were so, the MOQ would be useless, like
    > theology would be if it left out sin.

    squonk: The MoQ rejects subjects and objects as primary reality.

    We all agree on this.

    squonk: Subjects and Objects are intellectual patterns of value in the MoQ - intellectual value comes first and then subjects and objects are artistic creations.

    An artisitic creation is something like the Mona Lisa. Subjects and objects, on the other hand, are our reality at this time. Although we can recognize that they are not fundamental, we can't wish them away.

    squonk: The MoQ is not useless without subjects and objects - it is more coherent with out them.

    As I said to Bo, a philosophy that ignores them is like a theology that ignores sin. Perhaps you don't experience yourself as at all distinct from the computer in front of you, but most people do. A metaphysics that ignores that fact is useless. If subjects and objects are not primary reality, why does it seem that they are? A useful metaphysics must address that question.

    - 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 : Tue Aug 19 2003 - 04:09:43 BST