Hi Wim,
Hmmm, I think we are in agreement, sort of? We both are saying that
Pirsig's maps help us find are way toward Quality and that other map makers
can be referred to.
But I am puzzled by : >[Wim] Dear Gary, You wrote 31/8 18:21 -0700
essentially that Pirsig's MoQ is a imperfect map of his Quality experience,
his Reality."
The statement is ambiguous. If it means that Pirsig's map is imperfect map
of his Quality experience/his Reality because all maps are less than and not
equivalent to the territory, than I agree. If you are saying that Pirsig's
map is flawed because of some failing of his to understand his experience,
than I do not agree. I'm not sure which side of the ambiguous meaning you
are trying to convey. I presume that Pirsig did his utmost to understand
Quality and to convey it to the best of his ability. I think you would
agree. Hence, not sure what you mean by that sentence. A minor point.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by
: [Wim]>" I object against the little word 'valid' you slip in. This
presumes the
> map/territory metaphor (which I don't mind using)
> into a metaphysical split (which I want to avoid).
> I experience the 'usefulness' of Pirsig's map. It obviously points me
> towards my Quality/Reality. I don't know about its cause however. The
cause
> you give (similar structure of Pirsig's map and Quality/Reality) gives
> another map than Pirsig's one metaphysical status."
The reference to a "metaphysical split" is this to the notion that Reality
is so divided when viewed from the 3rd person omniscient perspective?
Another way to say ask this: do those words mean that the split is not in
the perception of reality, our menu & or our experience of eating the food,
but one that is posited in the nature of the food/Quality/Reality?
Asking for clarity,
Gary
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wim Nusselder" <wim.nusselder@antenna.nl>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2002 1:53 AM
Subject: Re: MD Stuck with Map/Territory?
> Dear Gary,
>
> You wrote 31/8 18:21 -0700 essentially that Pirsig's MoQ is a imperfect
map
> of his Quality experience, his Reality.
>
> I agree.
> Rephrasing this into Pirsig's MoQ being a 'menu' for the real Quality
> experience to be had, doesn't add much for me.
>
> You went on to write:
> 'Maps/words are useful if they have a STRUCTURE SIMILAR to the
territory!'
>
> I agree and ... conclude that maps/words DO add Quality experience: the
> 'usefulness' experience (with as deduced cause 'similarity of structure
> between maps and territory'). This type of Quality experience is what
> intellectual patterns of values consist of.
>
> You went on to write:
> 'Pirsig's map is useful and valid because it outlines a structure that is
> similar to that found in Quality. But Pirsig's maps are not the only valid
> map of Quality/Reality.'
>
> I object against the little word 'valid' you slip in. This presumes the
> map/territory metaphor (which I don't mind using) into a metaphysical
split
> (which I want to avoid).
> I experience the 'usefulness' of Pirsig's map. It obviously points me
> towards my Quality/Reality. I don't know about its cause however. The
cause
> you give (similar structure of Pirsig's map and Quality/Reality) gives
> another map than Pirsig's one metaphysical status.
> Pirsig's map is not only one I experience as useful, but it definitely is
> the most useful one for me, especially because it doesn't rule out the
> usefulness of the other maps.
>
> With friendly greetings,
>
> Wim
>
>
>
> 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
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