Hello Mark, Jonathan, Bodvar and all
Mark Butler wrote:
>
> Last week DAN wrote:
> "The embodied metaphor of language cannot be analyzed
> further, for who is it that can step outside of language to
> do the analyzing?
> Therefore, it would seem any hope of uncovering a catechism
> of the MOQ in this intellectual fashion is doomed to
> failure."
>
> I responded:
> "I think we can indeed analyze metaphor further, and can do
> so 'inside of language', which was the crux of my own topic
> suggestion for this month."
>
> DAN:
> "Yes we can make the attempt... but:
>
> "...It wasn't that the question wasn't answerable. It was
> answerable but the answer went on and on and you never got
> done." (Lila, paperback page 159)
>
> It would seem that this is what Niels Bohr was describing
> when he talked of "word pictures which may not be analyzed
> further." As soon as a catechism of quality is devised it
> becomes something other than what it professes to be. The
> answer keeps going on and on; formless until encountering
> form then shifting into new forms, spontaneously."
>
> MB:
> I accept this- and so in theory while one may, through
> linguistic analysis, uncover metaphors' concrete origins,
> the further one delves, the further one abstracts. But this
> type of intellectual practice might be a suitable western
> alternative to koan study. Also, I'm thinking that by
> increasing one's understanding of language in this way, the
> languager might be better equipped to prefer those lexical
> terms which most closely represent the concrete reality
> being intellectualized. ('that choice which is more
> Dynamic...')
Hi Mark
This seems to be what all of us here are engaged in, yes, but there may
be a problem with your last sentence in that there is no "concrete
reality" in the MOQ; there are patterns of value. And the more one
endeavors to intellectually uncover any such notion of a concrete
reality the further away one is taken until all that is left are ghosts.
I believe this is basically what Bodvar is getting at here in his reply
to Jonathan:
> Jonathan:
> Both Mark and Dan seem to agree with my suggestion that the MoQ is
> nothing but metaphor. The MoQ even has its own special name for
> metaphors - they are called "Static Patterns of Value". Note that
> here I depart with Dan's statement that A metaphor is an
> intellectual pattern of value in Robert Pirsig's MOQ.
Bodvar:
Dan's and Mark's agreement with you I doubt, but this reminds me
of P's sigh about having to resolve a metaphysical dispute at the
end of each sentence. It seems to be our fate even after three
years of discussing Pirsig's ideas.
After the first postulate of the MOQ that the World is Value
(convincingly or unconvincingly demonstrated is not a point for
those who have accepted it) the subject-object division does not
apply in its former role any longer. In the SOM metaphors are
language and as language is ABSTRACT (in contrast to
CONCRETE). Ipso facto: Another dee-dum subject/object offshoot.
In my opinion language was/is the ultimate social instrument that
Intellect used as a vehicle for its own purpose which is subject-
objectivism itself. That is the only definition of the Intellectual
level
that I find tenable.
Dan:
Hi Bodvar
Nice to see you back again. In language subject object metaphysics seems
inherent as Phaedrus discusses in Lila:
"This fictitious 'man' has many synonyms: 'mankind,' 'people,' 'the
public,' and even such pronouns as 'I,' 'he,' and 'they.' Our language
is so organized around them and they are so convenient to use it is
impossible to get rid of them. There is really no need to. Like
'substance,' they can be used as long as it is remembered that they're
terms for collections of patterns and not some independent primary
reality of their own." (Lila, paper back, page 178)
"This fictitious man": I am unsure if I agree with Jonathan or not, nor
whether my agreement matters in one way or another. I pretend that it
matters, like Phaedrus pretends sanity so "they" let him out of the
insane asylum. Perhaps he thought: Value arises from this pretense and
that which I pretend to be, I am.
> Mark:
> Last week I asked:
> "(1) How are the intellectual patterns we call metaphors
> generated in MOQ terms?"
>
> DAN answered:
> "In MOQ terms, metaphors value preconditioned cultural
> agreements. In
> other words, metaphors are not so much generated as they
> tend to
> spontaneously appear when conditions are right."
>
> MB:
> Hmm, let's take for example Andrea's excellent metaphors of
> (1) MF as "long and nice round wooden table", and (2) MOQ
> as "GREAT HALL". What are the 'preconditioned cultural
> agreements' valued by these metaphors? Real life
> discussions are often held at large conference tables, and
> a GREAT HALL suggests an entry into a grand house, a way
> into Quality. So, yes, I think you have put this
> beautifully, DAN.
Thank you. And I enjoyed Andreas' metaphorical post very much as well.
Thank you all for sharing your thoughts.
Dan
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:26 BST