Re: MD Pirsig and Peirce

Date: Wed Aug 20 2003 - 20:28:33 BST

  • Next message: Horse: "Re: MD squonk rider"

    You have a really strange way of "sincerely wanting to help" if the only way
    you reply to someone's questions, arguments, or ideas is just to repeat your
    slogans. Forget it.
    - Scott

    I have begun to consider the possibility that you have not in fact read
    either Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance or Lila.
    If you have read these books you will know the Metaphysics of Quality
    explains why it is we may feel subjects and objects are primary, but better explained
    as patterns of value.
    Stating this position is not sloganeering surely?
    If i state Descartes' position is such that mind is unexpended substance, am
    i sloganeering or expounding Descartes' metaphysics?

    I sent you a quote from ZMM which i can remind you of:

    But we know from Phaedrus' metaphysics that the harmony Poincare talked about
    is not subjective. It is the source of subjects and objects and exists in an
    anterior relationship to them. It is not capricious, it is the force that
    opposes capriciousness; the ordering principle of all scientific and mathematical
    thought which destroys capriciousness, and without which no scientific thought
    can proceed. What brought tears of recognition to my eyes was the discovery
    that these unfinished edges match perfectly in a kind of harmony that both
    Phaedrus and Poincare had talked about, to produce a complete structure of thought
    capable of uniting the separate languages of science and art into one. ZMM.
    p. 271.

    The MoQ takes the anterior harmony to be a relationship between SQ and DQ.
    The ordering principle is harmonious or coherent relationships between SQ and
    DQ. There are no subjects and objects in this metaphysics and therefore i do not
    discuss them. Why should i?

    There was a time, a time forever gone, when i was fooled into taking subjects
    and objects seriously, but the MoQ has been chipping away at my old view for
    10+ years now. In fact, my earlier understanding of quantum physics was doing
    that before i read Lila.

    You, on the other hand, are dominated by intellectual patterns which cannot
    ignore subjects and objects. I understand that, and do not blame your for it.
    But please do not cast aspersions regarding my sincere wish to help you see
    things the MoQ way? You do not have to agree, but please understand that i have
    gone to some length to avoid dismissing you, only to discover that you are now
    dismissing me.
    If you want me to forget it i will.

    All the best,

    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 : Wed Aug 20 2003 - 20:31:04 BST