From: Scott Roberts (jse885@cox.net)
Date: Fri Sep 16 2005 - 20:18:36 BST
Paul,
>[Scott said]>....So while Magliola does not use the word
>>'universal', the function of that word is there in the phrase "connected
>>experience" and "dependently arisen".
>
>Paul said: Then let's use those words instead.
>
>Scott said:
>I think it is advisable to keep in mind that those (Magliola's) words are
>substitutes for 'universal'
Paul: Can you show me where this is stated?
Scott:
It's stated by me. Derrida's need to bring in trace, and Magliola's
referring to "connected experience" are there because universals are real
(albeit non-self-existent), a necessary factor in all experience.
>
>Paul said: Again, I think dependently originated static patterns does the
>trick
>whenever you feel the need to bring in 'universal' and 'particular'.
>
>Scott said:
>But I don't see particulars in SPOV, just universals, so how does it do the
>trick?
Paul said: Because it repudiates the universal/particular distinction
whilst
allowing us to talk about 'things'.
Scott:
It does not allow us to talk about language and intellect. "Static patterns"
are universals, and "dependently originated" just emphasizes that universals
are not inherently self-existent. So there is no way with this 'trick' to
distinguish, for example, between signified and signifier, to show how they
are mutually dependent in that they bring each other into being, yet in
doing so negate each other. With contradictory identity one can distinguish
without assuming an absolute separation (which leads to SOM). But in the
MOQ, one has simply ignored the problem (the what, how, whence, and why of
language and intellect) entirely.
>Scott prev:
>Ok. I can agree that a temporary privileging is useful for those who only
>know of the conventional view. But it is harmful if used as a basis for
>building a metaphysics.
Paul said: Possibly. But perhaps metaphysics inevitably operates purely as
samvrti-satya. This provides a neat 'solution' to Pirsig's self-confessed
contradiction:
"Since a metaphysics is essentially a kind of definition and since Quality
is essentially outside definition, this means that a "Metaphysics of
Quality" is essentially a contradiction in terms, a logical absurdity."
[LILA, p73]
The MOQ is justified from the perspective of samvrti-satya whereas no
metaphysics may be justified from the perspective of paramartha-satya.
Scott:
Ah, but the question is whether a metaphysics based on CI is or is not a
paramartha-satya perspective (or muddies the distinction between the two
perspectives -- yet another CI, or puts into question the idea that a
metaphysics is a perspective on something non-metaphysical). The quote from
Pirsig only applies if one accepts his anti-intellectual understanding of
mysticism, his belief that intellect lies solely in the realm of samsara.
- Scott
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 Sep 16 2005 - 20:48:57 BST