Hi
elephant wrote:
>
> "To me, it sounds as if you've given up on being able to describe reality,
> so you call reality DQ and then use SQ as an approximation of that reality."
>
> You just hit the nail on the head - Except: 1. No approximation can be
> spoken of, because there's no precise here to be an approximation to. And
> 2. you have the wrong concept of description. Language does not *report*
> the world, it *pictures* it. This is because no individuations (objects,
> subjects, events) exist prior to the language, so there would be nothing to
> report.
Regarding 2, according to my understanding of MoQ, objects, subjects and
events does exist prior to language. Language to me, regardless of whether
it reports or pictures the world, is simply intellectual patterns representing
other patterns. Or rather, language is the mapping between the intellectual
patterns and the patterns they represent. Anyway, I truly believe the world,
(i.e. objects, subjects and events) exists even without language.
> As to your disagreement about DQ being a continuum, I suggest you re-read
> Zen and the art of MotorCycle maintainance. Pirsig is quite clear and even
> quotes Northrop as stating his own views, using this exact same word:
> continuum, and meaning by it just what I mean.
The continuum from ZMM is the esthetic continuum that Pirsig calls the
romantic reality. The romantic/classic split is not the DQ/SQ split so
I fail to see your point.
Magnus
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:27 BST