From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Sat Jan 11 2003 - 20:28:03 GMT
Scott:
> [Platt:]> Binary language is secondary to pure experience which creates
> reality. > The "creative force" is better thought of as Dynamic Quality in
> the MoQ.
>
> Here we disagree, but I haven't given my reasons for my position as yet
> (actually, I did once, in a long post that got lost). Roughly, as I mention
> in my post to Matt, I consider that it is better to think of all experience
> is word-like, rather than thing-like or process-like.
Along the same line, I think of experience as Quality-like which is both
a process (DQ) and a thing (SQ).
> I come to this from
> two sources, one is Barfield, who points out that in pre-intellectual
> societies (in the state he calls "original participation") that which we
> consider just "out there" was experienced as being in some sense alive, to
> have a spirit "behind" it, and that the "it" (the sense-perceptible) was
> the expression of that spirit. This is to say that we are now in a stage
> intermediate between that stage and that of "final participation", wherein
> (I'm sort of guessing) we can recover that expressivity with full
> intellect.
Perhaps the MoQ has recovered that "expressivity." Quality can be
considered "spirit like" and all patterns in the MoQ levels are in some
sense "aware" i.e., "alive."
> The linguistic turn is the claim made by a bunch of people like
> Wittgenstein, and including Benjamin Whorf, whom Pirsig speaks approvingly
> of, if I remember right, that what we know and how we act is largely
> structured (how much is controversial) by our language. Analytic philosophy
> is that which accepts this, and so turned to studying how we use words.
> Post-modernism takes it further, by denying that there is anything to know
> "outside the text" (an exaggeration, perhaps, but I'm only trying to stay
> in the ballpark), while the analytic philosophers, by and large, still
> believed in an independent, objective, reality towhich our verbiage can
> asymptotically approach.
Thanks for explaining what is meant by "linguistic turn." In plain English
it would be expressed as "emphasize language."
>>Again, contexts are derivative, a step down for the the Quality of
pure, prime experience.
> Again, I disagree. Without a context, there is nothing. Pure experience
> does not exist. DQ cannot be separated from SQ. Nirvana is samsara. God
> cannot not create.
DQ and SQ come into existence with the "first cut'' required to do philosophy
or create a vocabulary. Prior to that, Quality=the emptiness of pure
experience. Recall Pirsig's observation that nothing is something.
> > >There is no truth
> > > outside of a language game because everything is a play/player in a
> > > language game (not restricted to human players). "In the beginning was
> > > the Logos" turns out to be a simple metaphysical fact.
> >
> > Two more absolute truths are asserted.
>
> As I said long ago, and as Kevin has recently remarked similarly, because
> there is no way to verify or deny a metaphysical statement by "checking out
> the facts", then any metaphysical statement that I make should be
> considered to be prefaced by some phrase like "I invite you to think
> that...". They are not "statements of truth", absolute or not. They are
> proposals for a restructuring of one's vocabulary.
Seems you are saying, "I invite you to think it is true that . . ." thus
invoking a universal, foundational acceptance of truth as a guiding
concept. In any case, "vocabulary" is invoked so frequently by followers
of Rorty (among others) that it begins to take on the status of an
absolute all by itself. :-).
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 2.1.5 : Sat Jan 11 2003 - 20:31:32 GMT