Re: MD MOQ human development and the levels

From: MATTHEW PAUL KUNDERT (mpkundert@students.wisc.edu)
Date: Tue Jun 10 2003 - 18:50:13 BST

  • Next message: nic nott: "Re: MD The Eudaimonic MoQ"

    Johnny,

    Johnny said:
    I think DQ is an analogy for limits of our knowledge.

    To not be an analogy, something has to be what it means. The only thing
    that is what it means is The Word. AKA, morality, quality, the whole
    universe.

    Matt:
    Yeah, totality itself, which is incomprehensible i.e. its a metaphor. Rorty distinguishes between the literal and the metaphorical by saying the former is a decipherable mark or sound and the latter isn't. I take this to be the same as Pirsig's static/dynamic distinction. But, incorporating Pirsig's ZMM statement that everything is an analogy, up to and including the static/dynamic and literal/metaphorical distinctions, Pirsig and Rorty can be seen to side up with Nietzsche's claim that language is that whole mobile army of metaphors. This is the claim that all knowledge is rhetorical, that rhetoric precedes dialectic, that knowledge is linguistic. (Granted, though, that this might be in direct tension with other portions of Pirsig.)

    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 : Tue Jun 10 2003 - 18:52:34 BST