Hi Wim, Scott:
WIM:
> You seem to misunderstand me here: I meant that the
> map/territory-distinction should NOT be seen as a 'first' (metaphysical)
> 'cut of Reality', but as a metaphor. I agree with your comments: that 'the
> map/territory split is really the same as the subject/object split' and
> that the MoQ acknowledges these splits as secondary splits of Reality AFTER
> the first split into Dynamic and static quality has been made and static
> quality has been split into the four levels. Pirsig wrote indeed (not in
> 'Lila' as far as I know, but only in www.moq.org/forum/emmpaper.html) that
> inorganic and biological patterns of values can be associated with
> 'objects' and social and intellectual patterns of values with 'objects'.
Thanks for clarifying your position. For reference purposes, you'll find
the association of the value levels with subjects and objects in 'Lila,"
Chap. 24, as follows:
"The Metaphysics of Quality resolves the relationship between intellect
and society, subject and object, mind and matter, by embedding all of
them in a larger system of understanding. Objects are inorganic and
biological values; subjects are social and intellectual values."
Interesting that Pirsig refers to the MOQ, and by implication any
metaphysics, as a "system of understanding." Scott seems to argue
that there's no difference between systems of understanding and the
raw data of experience:
SCOTT:
>What we perceive (its form) is created by the perceiving. In other
>words, all of reality is language.
If all of reality is language, why don't we just eat menus? I must be
missing something. Do I detect a bit of postmodernist "it's all text" in
your view, Scott?
Platt
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 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:29 BST