Re: MD Two Theses in the MOQ

From: David M (davidint@blueyonder.co.uk)
Date: Sun Nov 27 2005 - 18:28:17 GMT

  • Next message: David M: "Re: MD Re: Quality, subjectivity and the 4th level"
  • Next message: Matt Kundert: "RE: MD Language, SOM, and the MoQ"

    Paul/Platt

    Do we not need to explore the values
    that the body seems to already possess
    when we are born? Our bodies are therefore
    context creating for our experiences. Such that
    society spends a great deal of time socialising
    those biological/embodied values.

    DM

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Paul Turner" <paul@turnerbc.co.uk>
    To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 4:51 PM
    Subject: RE: MD Two Theses in the MOQ

    > Platt,
    >
    >>Thanks for explaining your position on some of the questions I asked. It
    >>appears our differences boil down to a single key idea that you set up as
    >>follows:
    >>
    >>> I think judgement implies an element of reflection or consideration . .
    >>> .
    >>
    >>Contrast this to Pirsig's description of knowing the value of a situation
    >>without any reflection or consideration:
    >>
    >>"Any person of any philosophic persuasion who sits on a hot stove will
    >>verify without any intellectual argument whatsoever that he is in an
    >>undeniably low-quality situation: that the value of his predicament is
    >>negative. This low quality is not just a vague, woolly-headed, crypto-
    >>religious, metaphysical abstraction. It is an experience: It is not a
    >>judgment about an experience. It is not a description of experience. The
    >>value itself is an experience." (Lila, 5)
    >>
    >>Note particularly Pirsig's caution, "It is not a judgment about an
    >>experience." Yet, the individual "knows" (without judging) that the
    >>situation is low quality.
    >
    > Paul: This paragraph you have quoted hits the nail on the head. The MOQ
    > starts from this basic premise: that value itself is an experience and
    > not
    > what you think about, or even feel about, an experience. To miss this
    > difference between value and value judgements leads to an understanding of
    > the MOQ which, I think, is very far from Pirsig's. I have correspondence
    > which supports this but I have learned that sharing it is not always well
    > received here so I'll quote from a letter available at moq.org, where you
    > can read the whole thing if you wish, instead:
    >
    > "Anthony McWatt attended a class on ZMM where the teacher...had no grasp
    > of
    > what value was, only what a value judgement was." [Pirsig, Letter to
    > Bodvar
    > Skutvik, September 15th 2000]
    >
    >>Here then is the crux of my confusion. It seems I can know I'm having a
    >>low quality experience without making a value judgment, i.e., I'm able to
    >>instantly evaluate a situation without thinking.
    >
    > Paul: Or rather, the "situation" emerges within your thinking following
    > the
    > experience of value.
    >
    >>To put it another way, art critic Clement Greenberg describes the esthetic
    >>experience: "Esthetic enjoyments are immediate, intuitive, undeliberate
    >>and involuntary leaving not room for conscious application of standards,
    >>criteria, rules or precepts."
    >>
    >>I've always felt that Greenberg and Pirsig were describing the same
    >>phenomenon.
    >>
    >>> Paul: I think your confusion comes from conflating Dynamic 'value' with
    >>> static 'value judgements'.
    >>
    >>Indeed, that may be the problem. Do you see experiencing Dynamic 'value'
    >>the same as Greenberg describes the aesthetic experience?
    >
    > Paul: It certainly sounds the same from what you've quoted above although
    > historically terms such as "immediate" and "intuitive" cause problems in a
    > philosophical sense, as Matt can point out. "Standards, criteria, rules
    > and
    > precepts" are definitely part of the static quality which contributes the
    > context within which one makes value judgements and not part of ongoing
    > value itself.
    >
    > Regards
    >
    > Paul
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > 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 : Mon Nov 28 2005 - 05:29:32 GMT