ELEPHANT TO DANN:
ELEPHANT WROTE:
>> DQ is definitely *not* the pour-soi! And I'm not sure we can say
>> that the en-soi are really SQ either: because Sartre has really quite a
>> different idea about what value is and where it comes from. Sartre thinks
>> that value is invented, while Pirsig stresses that it is "out there" as real
>> as the mountains and trees.
DANN:
> Out where? Who said "reality is fired at us point-blank."?
ELEPHANT:
Gun manufacturers? No, but seriously, there was a reason that I put the
"out there" in those barge-pole quotation marks, and you hit on it nicely
(well done). But what I was getting at in this contrast between RMP and JPS
is that JPS thinks we have to choose value, whereas RMP thinks value exists
(Dynamic Quality), and that our choices are made in the light of this fact.
There is a difference here, I think - though I'm willing to hear you explain
how it's just a matter of emphasis, if that's your theory.
ELEPHANT WROTE:
>> SQ is an attempt to capture some leading edge
>> of value: for Sartre that leading edge doesn't exist, and existence is
>> continuous but somehow horrid and incomprehensible and devoid of value:
>> "viscous".
DANN:
> Sartre contrasts "authentic" living with "seriousness." Can we fault him for
> not "endorsing" some phony morality ("seriousness").
ELEPHANT:
No - of course not: who wants a phoney morality? My point would be,
however, that whatever you or JPS may say, the Authenticity/Bad faith
distinction is a moral one: JPS does talk about what we *ought* to value
doesn't he? (i.e. "freedom"). Not phoney, he'd hope, but moral none the
less.
ttfn
Elephant
------- End of forwarded message -------
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:30 BST