In a message dated 9/12/02 7:34:00 PM GMT Daylight Time,
todcoul@koncon.koncon.nl writes:
> Dear Squonk,
>
> what I remember from the Dutch book is that 'knowledge' in ancient
> Greek is "Sunesis" which means s.t. like 'converging' with the outside
> world, a coming together. This I find a very intriguing and inspiring
> thought. This places subject and object in not so rigid a relation.
> We as human beings then 'know' something if we can 'come together'
> with it.
>
> I agree with you that quality doesn't come after the S/O discrimination.
> It rather is inherent in the world. In my opinion we cannot perceive
> without experiencing quality (positive or negative!). But, and that
> might be considered controversial in this forum, in my opinion we
> also cannot perceive without BEING someone and without perceiving
> SOMETHING (whatever that may be... not necessarily static objects).
> Quality, Subject and Object do not exclude eachother, they are inextricably
>
> linked together. It makes no sense to me to put either of these components
> as primary. This is the point where I disagree with Pirsig. But I
> have to work this out more.
>
> I believe you can interpret Pirsig in a very pragmatic and empiric
> manner in this way. Thus you can avoid any metaphysical assumption.
> We all experience the fact that experience is primary. But experience
> can be hardly perceived as a 'thing' in itself. It begs other categories.
>
>
> I was wondering, considering the above knowledge - "sunesis" sentences,
> how Pirsig considers knowledge. What IS knowledge in MOQ? Knowledge
> needs by definition something knowing and s.t. to be known. Or is
> knowledge impossible in MOQ? Or is knowledge transformed into experience,
> just as the ancient Greeks seem to imply? This sounds familiar with
> the meaning of the Greek term for Quality (damn i forgot it, Pirsig
> deals with it in ZAMM...) which has a much broader meaning than it
> has today.
>
> Anyway, I have to call it quits for today - Wim: my Platypi essay
> will get here some day...!
>
> thanks you all
> Thomas
>
Hi Thomas,
Arte?
I have a great deal of sympathy with the knowledge as, 'Coming together.'
The notion that any knowledge is absolutely true is the problem i feel? Truth
as a static pattern of intellectual value has uses, but knowledge in an MOQ
sense would be more a matter of harmony and sympathy of all value patterns?
One may even view epistemology as a dead end?
Harmony can be empirically verified just as well, if not better than facts
because harmony is immediately experienced?
All the best,
Squonk.
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