Squonk,
I have to keep responding 'cuz you just keep saying good things...
>
> Hi Matt,
> Yes, maybe we are much closer than the 'nasty' Squonk would have it?
> In a sense, placing Quality at the centre of a metaphysics destroys the
> metaphysics?
> After all, it is something of a contradiction?
> This contradicting tone continually shocks one into immediacy?
This "contradictory tone" is exactly what I found when I last toyed with a
Quality Metaphysics. DQ is seeing reality in a holistic manner and sq is
seeing reality in parts. But both comprise the whole of Quality. Essentialy,
'DQ' and 'not DQ' equals Quality. The logical problem here is that it violates
the Law of Contradiction, which has violent side-effects on those who want to
use logic. Once you violate it, you can get any proposition you want. There
have been a few philosopher's over the years who have violated, knowingly, the
law of Contradiction (Sartre, for one). I think Pirsig is doing the same
thing. The shock you get is a shock out of intellectualization, out of
objectification.
Though I've subsequently made the so-called linguistic turn (meaning I'd rather
avoid speaking of "experience" and rather speak of "words" or "sentential
attitudes"), I think the shake we get from Pirsig is one that makes one be
quiet. It doesn't make you closer to reality, it just lets you see how
precariously balanced your tools for coping with reality really are and that
you should just sit back and enjoy a sunset once in a while.
Matt
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 - 16:06:31 BST