Hi Rick and Focs,
> RICK:
> .. the quote you snipped wasn't supposed to divide
> intellect/emotion... it was simply supposed to place them both
"behind" the
> Q-Event... in it's wake rather than in it's path...
I know, but we must be sure that the "wake" isn't funereal to celebrate
the burial of Q. That's why I propose a greater emphasis on the whole
Q-process, where the initial event is just the start of the proceess,
but definitely not the end of Q. Quality is lasting, not transient.
> RICK:
> This "evaluation" of the primary preintellectual reality is what I
believe
> Pirsig has isolated as the Q-event....
On first reading I agreed with you, but now don't. The "evaluation" is
ongoing, not an event. It then becomes part of the reality subject to
further evaluation. The "preintellectual" is a Genesis, but you can't
say wher it ends. By analogy, if physicists can still hear
reverberations of the Big Bang, that means it is still banging, an
ongoing creation process.
>
> JON:
> [preintellectual reality] continues with evaluation of the
intellectualized understanding of
> that reality. It is ongoing.
I couldn't have put it better myself ;-)
> RICK:
> I don't know about this.... Intellectualization always comes after the
> "cutting edge of reality", first we experience and then we attach our
> analogues of intellect/emotion. They can't be part of the Q-event
because
> the event is this "cutting edge" and intellect arises only in it's
wake...
Yes, but the cutting edge doesn't exist without the knife. There's no
edge without a knife, and no knife without the cutting edge.
> we could choose to call the whole thing a Q-process, but then we
refering to
> more than just the "preintellectual cutting edge of reality"...
besides in
> the diagram on pg. of ZMM Pirsig actually identifies Romantic Q with
> preintellect....
He does (or rather did). I wonder if he still does. I don't like the
implication that if one *learns* to love someone or something, then that
love is devoid of Romantic Q.
> > JON:
> > ..my answer MU to the "Science or Emotivism" question is similar
> > to the answer Phaedrus received about the A-bomb, I don't see the
> > parallel. Isn't this just "empty" rhetoric.
>
> RICK:
> Second, I resent the idea that rhetoric is "empty" when it involkes
emotive
> argument. Given the context of our discussion and the points you made
above
> I find it
> bizarre that you would label emotive argument as "empty."
Bizarre and ironic, and thinking about it some more, I now understand
why it is "empty".
You certainly evoked an emotive big bang (A-bomb), but my evaluation its
wake led me to dismiss it as irrelavent to the argument. The fact that
some Hindu professor called the suffering produced by the A-bomb
"illusory" IMHO has nothing to do with my argument that a question
posing a choice between Science and Emotivism needs to be unasked.
> Finally, the funny part about all this is that . . .you actually
explain
> this parallel far better than I did....
>
> ".... the question he asked and the answer he was given belonged to
> different
> > philosophical contexts."
>
> Yes, that's what I meant. Your answer wasn't "baseless garbage", it
just
> belonged to a different philosophical context than my question and
therefore
> has no real value as answer. While the term "MU" may work well for
the Zen
> masters, it has no place in rational discussion.
I disagree, especially because of my background in scientific research.
Sometimes, a question itself is prejorative - to answer it is to accept
some unspoken premise. Einstein answered MU to the big question of his
day, "Is light a wave, or a stream of particles?". When Phaedrus was
asked, "Is this quality of yours subjective or objective?" he answered
MU.
The right to answer MU (or to shout "Platyus") should be regarded as
Amendment 1 to the MoQ constitution.
> Are we making progress yet???
> Rick
MU ;-)
Jonathan
------- End of forwarded message -------
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:25 BST