From: MATTHEW PAUL KUNDERT (mpkundert@students.wisc.edu)
Date: Sun Jun 08 2003 - 22:17:13 BST
Paul,
Paul said:
I am also arguing that explanations of experience can
be judged by a sense of intellectual or Dynamic value
that is distinct from the sense of value defining the
social level, and with or without social authority.
This is easy to accept if you agree that value is
empirical reality and needs no social authority to
'verify' it, and impossible to accept if you deny it.
Matt:
I don't see the two things as being logically connected at all. I accept the Quality metaphor, yet I resist making a discrete distinction between society and ideas.
Paul said:
If the distinction I make between society and ideas
fails to provide a good explanation of experience for
you, it is your sense of value that decides that. What
is your sense of value based on, Matt?
It appears that intellectual value to you is whether
an idea fits with Rorty's explanation of experience or
not.
Matt:
And conversely, an intellectual value to you is whether an idea fits with Pirsig's explanation in Lila.
I'm perfectly comfortable accepting that "it is your sense of value that decides" what provides a good explanation. That's usually my point in other posts to this forum. So I fail to see its relevance to what we were just talking about. As far as I can see, I summed up our disagreements fairly well, as is evident from your superfluous reminders that "The MOQ values the idea that intellectual patterns of value are distinct from social patterns. That's the way it goes," and "Zen Buddhists would leave [ultimate reality] in."
Matt
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 : Sun Jun 08 2003 - 22:19:26 BST