From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Tue Oct 28 2003 - 18:54:59 GMT
Andy
I agree with what you ascribe here to the rest of us.
regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: <abahn@comcast.net>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 3:56 PM
Subject: Re: MD What makes an idea dangerous?
> Steve, Wim, Bo, Platt, DMB, and the rest,
>
> Short of time, so I will just conclude for awhile by saying that it seems
there is some consensus that Pirsig and the MOQ does not offer us an easy
answer to the question of what makes an idea dangerous. Some side
disagreements seem to center on the term "value." In the MOQ value is
primary, because Pirsig uses value and quality interchangably. I chose to
talk about "social values" rather than "Static patterns" because the latter
term seemed to me to be too benign. Social Values carries around some more
baggage and the poet in me wanted to hang on to some of that baggage. But,
I agree that this does not mix well with the MOQ and that "value" does not
change within it. However, culture/values/morals/static patterns that
individuals live by within societies are subject to change.
>
> According to AntMcwatt's thesis, Quality/value are primary in the MOQ and
truth is secondary. I am not inspired enough this morning to further split
truth between big T and little t. But, I am talking about truth as
something we inquire about. DMB and Platt wish to combine truth with the
primary reality in the MOQ. I think the rest of us see the folly in this.
When the pragmatist says the best we can do with truth is persuade and
discuss that there are better ways to live or better explanations or better
predictors of the future and that we come to intersubject agreements about
what these better things are, all they are saying is that truth is
secondary. That it is a property of language. They are saying nothing
about the primary reality--whatever we want to call that. They are saying,
however, that we can never make a correspondance between the primary reality
and our descriptions of this primary reality. In this sense, they agree
with the mystic interpretation of !
> Pirsig. In the MOQ the primary reality is called Quality or value, but
in particular Dynamic Quality. So, finally, to DMB, I will assert that he
still has not pointed out why Pirsig's truth and Rorty's truth will not mix.
>
> Regards,
> Andy
>
>
>
> 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 : Tue Oct 28 2003 - 19:25:41 GMT