From: jhmau (jhmau@sbcglobal.net)
Date: Thu Mar 13 2003 - 21:15:59 GMT
Hi Matt, Wim, Johnny and All,
MoQ throws light on how we know. Matt said on 4 March 2003 11:07 AM "Persig
seems to strike the view that you don't need epistemology. It's all
intuitive."
joe: Pirsig points to an intuitive sensing of quality. The epistemology of
intuition is embedded in the explication of an instinctive sensing of
reality. Words represent patterns, sq, rather than abstracted essences as
in SOM. Patterns are formed from instinct and memory. The 'quality' in the
pattern is certain as it is intuited from dq. In an instinctive sensing of
real;ities there are different certainties. My actions are certain. "The
devil made me do it!" is no defense. The certainty of the word 'is'
representing existence is instinctive, no proof possible. I can only focus
my attention. Howevedr, I can speak from laziness, confusion and lies.
Therefore I only trust words so I have to verify them, as Johnny pointed
out. But the quality part of a word is certain, the memory part can be
faulty. 'Final vocabulary' and 'recontextualization' are useful in
expoloring the 'quality' part of the pattern.
Matt: In my mind, Quality, is the ultimate metaphor.
joe: A metaphor attributes existence for something not usually existing in
that way. For example, I am a tree. The ultimate metaphor would be,
'quality is.' This is an "indecipherable sound or scratch" which replaces
'substance is.' Matt, I think you have set up a straw man which you are
abusing for reasons of your own. If you prefer SOM why talk about Quality
at all. From an MoQ perspective the above statement is not true. In MoQ I
learn, I act, I am, I remember. No mind is necessary and out comes Occam's
razor.
Matt: This is why I think Quality is an anti-essence, a poisonous term to
put into any system that purports to correspond to the way things truly are.
joe: In SOM Quality is an accident, it adheres in the substance. I do not
see how in SOM Quality can be anti-essence since it depends on essence for
its existence. If you are referring to MoQ Quality you do not accept
intuition. More abuse for the strawman begging the question 'the way things
truly are.' Not hardly wht I would call a quality exposition even in SOM
terms. I refer you to Wim's statement on 12 March 2003 11:24 PM: "MoQish
'Quality' is only an attribute of patterns."
Joe
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 : Thu Mar 13 2003 - 21:14:53 GMT