From: David M (davidint@blueyonder.co.uk)
Date: Thu Oct 13 2005 - 23:02:44 BST
Hi
I think DMB is saying the experience is good or bad
we do not need to decide, no act to give it value occurs.
The experience has value, it does not need to be given value
by an act of valuing. Is that right DMB?
DM
----- Original Message -----
From: "Platt Holden" <pholden@sc.rr.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>; <owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk>
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 9:47 PM
Subject: RE: MD Rhetoric
> Matt:
>
>> DMB said:
>> This is why I think Pirsig and Hayes ARE saying the same thing. They're
>> both talking about an experience in which judgement is absent. I would
>> even
>> go so fat as to say that taking the "undifferentiated aesthetic
>> continuum",
>> the "pure sensation" or "immeditate experience" as a reference to some
>> kind
>> of "valuing" or "judging" is to inappropriately let SOM's subjective self
>> creep back into the conversation.
>>
>> Matt:
>> I'm actually very surprised by this. I think the reading of the hot
>> stove
>> example you just gave is totally wrong. I actually wonder what Paul and
>> Anthony think of your most recent writings about Hayes and Pirsig. Up
>> until a week ago, I thought everyone, even me, agreed on Pirsig's central
>> insight.
>> And not only that, you appear to think what you're saying is normal and
>> not a radical departure from typical readings of Pirsig. I just can't
>> believe any one impressed by Pirsig would say the above. The only thing
>> I
>> can really say is, Why did Pirsig call the ultimate reality Quality
>> (which
>> he uses interchangeably with Value) if what you say is true? It boggles
>> my
>> mind to think that one can have value at the heart of it all without
>> valuing. Touching the stove is not a neutral impression, as you would
>> have
>> it, its a negative experience, a low-Quality situation, as Pirsig says in
>> the very passage in question.
>
> Matt, you are absolutely right, and DMB couldn't be more wrong. There's no
> difference between immediate experience and valuing. I may not be one with
> a walrus, but I'm one with pre-intellectual experience and moral judgment.
> Your explanation of why this is so is dead on. And like you, I thought
> anyone who understood Pirsig would understand this basic premise.
>
> Platt
>
>
>
> 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 Oct 14 2005 - 00:29:27 BST