Hi Rob,
I'll throw my hat in the ring again on this issue. My
position is on the edge: I agree with everything that
Denis says as he explains what the book says well.
It's funny: the more frustrated Denis gets the more
clear are his posts. I SENSE the meaning that Bo and
you are getting at, and it is legitimate but difficult
to discuss because it uses dynamic quality in its
expression. I think Denis senses it too. Your position
is hard to express in language. Wittgenstein had the
same problem. Instead of inventing new grammar like I
have tried ( [dq][/dq] etc.) he focussed on how
language was used, how it shows, how it expresses. So
it seems as you said the MOQ depends on "how it is
used." It depends on "vision." As Wittgenstein said,
"look don't think." It's useful to think of a direct
correlation between vision-logic and late Wittgenstein
(vision) and early Wittgenstein (logic). Or Bo and Rob
is to vision as Denis is to logic. And I think all
three of you are open to the "fusion" of the two.
But I have one question. I know this kid, Drew, and he
is about 4. I often visit him and play. We play mostly
hunt the bad guy, and I like to joke with myself by
calling the bad guy "hermeneutic." Sometimes when we
are having a good time he calls me "daddy". He
corrects himself quickly and calls me by my real name.
It's happened several times. I've noticed this and
have made a conclusion. He calls me "daddy" because to
him I am a "pattern of values" that reminds him of
"daddy". I am not a separate object. I am a quality at
times to him that he thinks of the thing called
"daddy." It doesn't matter to him that I am not
"daddy" it's the pattern of values that gets him. Also
when we hunt for "hermeneutic" there is no doubt that
there is a thing to hunt for. Why? The "pattern of
values" is established and whether there is an object
or no object makes no difference. So my question is,
if an un-SOM Quality is the "higher" state
EVOLUTIONARILY, WHY DID HUMANS DEVELOP LOGIC IN THE
FIRST PLACE? It seems we have "vision" as a kid, lose
it to "logic," and spend the rest of our life finding
vision again. A fifth level of vision-logic would be
wrong BECAUSE it would be DEVOLVING back to when we
were 3. It's a contradiction against Pirsig's theme of
EVOLUTION TOWARDS HIGHER QUALITY.
Angus
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of
your unique holiday gifts! Buy at http://shopping.yahoo.com
or bid at http://auctions.yahoo.com
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 - 16:01:42 BST