On 25 Apr 2002 at 14:22, Angus Guschwan wrote:
(to me)
I'm not sure if you're interested but I see an analogy
> between SOLAQI-MOQ and Wittgenstein. Your SOLAQI is
> essentially early Wittgenstein, and your view of MOQ
> is essentially late Wittgenstein. Sam and I think late
> Wittgenstein subsumes early Wittgenstein, as is a
> necessary step to understand all of Wittgenstein. MOQ
> subsumes SOLAQI but is a necessary step to understand
> MOQ.
Dear Angus.
Sorry for not having followed up on earlier exchanges with you (re.
Comte f.ex), but I have such problem understanding your approach to
the MOQ and how the ... early or late Wittgenstein has any bearing on
my SOL-interpretation of it. No sarcasm, but can't you start by
assuming that no-one has heard about W. and tell us how he basically
takes leave of the subject/object tradition of Western thinking. I promise
to read it however long.
Just about this ....
> Are you a mystic on the MOQ?
The first postulate (Quality=Reality) is a kind of mysticism, because
what a new metaphysics has as it's starting point is without root in the
old one, but after accepting the postulate, my SOL-interpretation is no
more or no less mystical.
But - then no-one has ever constructed a new metaphysics before
Pirsig.
Bo
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 - 16:02:12 BST