Re: MD Rhetoric

From: David M (davidint@blueyonder.co.uk)
Date: Sat Oct 15 2005 - 19:58:41 BST

  • Next message: David M: "Re: MD Rhetoric"

    is not valuing-in-itself as you say not another word
    for causality, I am starting to think that is the case
    and is what we are talking about regarding undifferentiated quality, we are
    beings-in-the-world,
    it impacts or strokes us, DQ/agency aside we are embodied too, our patterns
    enduring is good for us,
    them getting reduced to lower level patterns via
    crushing is bad. Is this an ontologically
    unavoidable for of pragmatism? But don't forget
    the way DQ monkeys with our qualities.

    DM
    we have no choice about
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Matt Kundert" <pirsigaffliction@hotmail.com>
    To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 5:33 PM
    Subject: Re: MD Rhetoric

    > Ian,
    >
    > Ian said:
    > When you say Matt (of DMB) "It boggles my mind to think that one can have
    > value at the heart of it all without valuing."
    >
    > Is this not just terminology again. DMB is using valuing / judging as
    > post-immediate-experience intellectual processes, but he is using value as
    > the more immediate experience before any active valuing.
    >
    > Actively (dynamically) experienced value, not actively valued value.
    >
    > Matt:
    > No, I don't think this is a verbal difference, this is a real difference.
    > I'm not sure what "value" is supposed to be before "valuing." Valuing
    > certainly does connote "active," which is just my problem with cutting a
    > distinction between value and valuing. I thought part of Pirsig's point
    > was to show us that we are actively involved with reality, not passive
    > receptors to it (as the British empiricist tradition said). And its not
    > only this passive/active distinction I don't like. If you cut "value" off
    > from "valuing," the only thing I can imagine "value" to be, apart from all
    > the "valuings," is value-in-itself. This is a move I saw before with my
    > conversation with Paul back at the beginning of the year. I don't know
    > what value-in-itself is supposed to do. And judging from Paul's most
    > recent writings in the past few months, I'm not sure even he wants any
    > truck with the notion anymore (in this context at least).
    >
    > Matt
    >
    > _________________________________________________________________
    > Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
    > http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
    >
    >
    >
    > 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 : Sat Oct 15 2005 - 21:17:04 BST