From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Tue Oct 07 2003 - 09:03:01 BST
Scott and All.
On 3 Oct.you wrote to me:
> I've been debating how to respond both to your original post in this
> thread or to this, but basically have to come back to what I said
> earlier: because I do not agree with all of Pirsig's assumptions,
I started my reply by writing this ...
Assumptions? Is that the postulates in LILA or does it go back to
Pirsig reasoning in ZMM?
...but being hampered by the need to think before writing, other posts
arrived in the meantime commenting your criticism of the MOQ.
However, it still looks like you circle round the "nomialist" issue ....
.......the rest grew outdated by later exchanges between you two so I
simply snip fro your post to-day (7 Oct.)
Paul had asked:
> > Out of interest, do you accept the MOQ premise that value is the
> > primary empirical reality, that everything is primarily an assertion
> > of value?
> No. Empirically there are four primary realities: perceiving, feeling,
> thinking, and willing, all of which come in S/O form. (We are naively
> dualists). The idea that everything is primarily an assertion of value
> is not an empirical given. It is a deduction, as you outline above. I
> agree with it, however. But based on those four primary realities one
> can also deduce that everything is primarily an assertion, that is, a
> semiotic act.
Scott, you have become a latter day Struan Hellier, but your
objections are more difficult to fathom. His was that the MOQ is
"subjective", i.e: that P. of ZMM accepted the subjective horn, and
that is a difficult point to counter (I guess that's why I have problems
with Pirsig's "Quality-creating-ideas-creating-inorganic ..etc." wich I
see playing straight into the hands of the subjective-accusation
opponent ...and why I got a little glad when you zoomed in on Paul,
but the way it developed I see that you have other axes to grind.
I have said many times that existence displays a lot of "unassimilated"
phenomena: Aesthetics, Intuition, Intelligence, ...(why not) Ideas
and/or Thinking, Observation (you mentioned) .. etc. that people have
suggest as better than Quality. (See, betterness is the judge!!!) and I
have also said that all these are different aspects of the ONE
motivating force. I also notice your final line above about the "semiotic
act" and as you remember the semiotic act (sign-reading) is easily
transformed into "valuation"
Anyway, whatever one picks as the innermost-foremost reality - may
give rise to the same metaphysics. First the Dynamic/Static divide,
then the Inorganic, Biological...etc. static layers. If this isn't your
objection either I am lost. The four-fold "Perceiving, Feeling, Thinking,
Willing" aggregate (PFTW) seems a bit unwieldy, but maybe
Dynamic PFTW/Static PFTW....etc. The nominalist/realist issue you
dropped once I started to investigate it, as you left Peirce and I guess
you will scurry away from this too on your great Mystery Tour.
Sincerely Bo
.
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 Oct 07 2003 - 09:03:59 BST