From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Fri Aug 13 2004 - 20:13:31 BST
Ham Priday in response to Scott Roberts' message, Thursday, August 12, 2004
1:07 PM
RE: MD RE: Proposal to discuss a Metaphysics of Value
> Ham,
>
> Some comments and a question.
>
> Pirsig uses the term 'Quality' as a result of an English department
> colleague asking him if he was teaching Quality to his English composition
> students (the incident is described in ZAMM).
Yes, I now recall reading of that incident. Doesn't it seem rather
arbitrary on the author's part to have chosen the pivotal term for his
philosophy on the basis of what could almost be regarded as sentiment?
Inasmuch as he often speaks of Value in the same context, what is there
about Quality that makes it the preferred operative term? Value is
universally comprehensible as "something to be desired", while Quality is
more typically used in the sense of "grading" a thing -- e.g., its
workmanship, reliability, integrity, efficiency, etc.-- thus putting it in
the SOM category.
> To say that Pirsig is less metaphysical due to his interspersing
> semi-autobiography within his books rather than being systematic is
> ridiculous. Is Plato (or Berkeley or Hume) to be downgraded because he
uses
> dialogue? Plotinus because he didn't write a Summa? Nietzche for relying
on
> aphorisms? You don't have to divine Pirsig's metaphysics by "reading
> between the lines". His story parts are well-separated from his philosophy
> parts. The irony is that his method is easy to read and understand, while
> yours is needlessly difficult (do you really need the neologisms P-Essent
> and B-Essent if they are "analogous" to subject and object"?).
But why should his readers have to pour through all this narrative to get at
these "separated parts"? The fiction is well written and entertaining, and
it is obvious that the author has an acute grasp of his fascinating
metaphysical concept. Why has he not taken the time to publish at least one
volume or tract on the central thesis itself, as virtually every other
philospher has done?
My P-essent/B-essent "neologism" is not an attempt to be "complex" but to be
"accurate". This
dichotomy [negate] is the metaphysical "precursor" of the individuated
subject and object; hence it would be incorrect to regard it as proprietary
to the specific individual as are "self" and "other".
t> A minor point: The Pseudo-Dionysius would seem to me to take the honor of
> first, or at least earlier than Eckhart, theologian to speak of what is
> beyond being and existence.
I would give it to Plotinus, whose ontology is more comprehensive and who
predates Dionysius by six centuries.
> From my Inner Stickler: Whence the circumflex over the 'e' in 'Sartre'? I
> checked some French web sites with lots of diacriticals, and none have it
> on 'Sartre'. Also, if you're going to mark the 'a' in 'a priori', it
should
> be a bar, to signify the long Latin vowel, not an acute, though it's
> probably better to leave it alone.
Thanks for the editing tips. I have made these corrections.
> The question: Do you consider the Patriot Act to be a help or a hindrance
> to freedom?
The answer depends on whether you believe (as I do) that our nation is under
attack and that we are currently at war with the terrorist factions. When
Franklin Roosevelt placed thousands of Japanese and European citizens into
internment camps following Pearl Harbor, I remember people shaking their
heads and saying "how awful to have to take these measures!" But they
didn't question the advisability of it, and this temporary restriction of
personal freedom was not condemned (at the time) by the Civil Liberties
Union. We were at war, and the security of our Nation (and the Freedom we
stood for) called for extreme caution. The only difference today is that
cynics like yourself no longer believe what Government tells them, hence
convince themselves that it's all a ploy by the politicians to win votes.
Unfortunately, the cynicism that prevents our seeing objective reality as it
is won't make the terrorist threat go away.
I haven't researched details of the U.S.A. Patriot Act which, as I
understand it, was designed to facilitate more effective communication
between the law enforcement agencies where terrorism is involved. It seems
to me that, considering the circumstances, the American community must be
willing to give up certain civil liberties (including the right of
foreigners to enter our borders) in the interest of preserving Freedom for
all, just as a child must be deprived of certain liberties in order to learn
how to exercise personal Freedom responsibly in a free society.
- Ham
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward -
http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> 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 Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 : Fri Aug 13 2004 - 21:03:55 BST