From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Sat Nov 01 2003 - 21:27:07 GMT
Scott
I think you are very wrong here. Pirsig is clearly
saying to treat something as ONLY/exclusively an abstraction is
inadequate. Pirsig wants to talk about reality-quality and as soon
as this happens you have to start using abstract concepts, he knows
this well, he talks about how SOM cuts things up one way, how this dominates
out thinking, and he suggests the MOQ as a different way to analyse our
experience.
If something is just abstract and has no effect on
reality-experience-existence why
would it interest us? DQ has to be linked to
creativity/mysticism/imagination if we
are going to move from an SQ/DQ distinction to talk about how the two
interact
to produce this existence-world. Whilst I think what you have to say can add
to
our understanding of the MOQ I do not see that it either goes beyond it or
contradicts
it, rather it fleshes it out. What do you think abstraction has to offer us
that contradicts the
MOQ, I can't see it, maybe if we can get to grips with this I can change
your mind or
you can change mine.
regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott R" <jse885@spinn.net>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 5:50 PM
Subject: Re: MD Self-consciousness
> Andy
>
> > Hi Paul and Scott,
> >
> > Paul said to Scott: "The reification of Dynamic Quality is something I
> think Pirsig tries to avoid throughout Lila e.g. when he discusses
latching
> and degeneracy in several contexts."
> >
> > While reading Antmcwatts thesis, Pirsig says in an email to Mcwatt
(2001)
> anwering former moq_discuss member John Beasley's criticisms of the MOQ
> which are similar to Scott's (as far as I can tell). Beasley said:
> >
> > "[Pirsig]loses the value of his core term, 'quality', by equating it
with
> too many other terms, and ultimately reifying it; while at the same time
> asserting that quality cannot be defined, and ignoring the paradox."
> >
> > To which Pirsig replies (to Mcwatt):
> >
> > "To reify means to regard an abstraction as if it had a concrete or
> material existence. You don't lose the value of quality by treating it as
> if it had a concrete or material existence. You lose the value of quality
> by treating it as if it had only an abstract existence. That is a
> fundamental point of the MOQ. Beasley's unease is caused by an inability
to
> understand this basic assertion of the MOQ. He assumes it is in error
> because it contradicts his prejudices but never explains why his
prejudices
> are superior."
> >
> > >From the above quote it does NOT seem like the reification of quality
is
> something Pirsig is trying to avoid. I am not sure how exactly this
relates
> to your discussion, but I would be interested in your comments on the
above
> quote. One comment I would make is that Pirsig might have been better
> served by using Rorty or Matts terminology for the last sentence.
"Begging
> the question" seems to be a better phrase than calling another's
assumptions
> "his prejudices." But, of course, the discussion is always open on whose
> assumptions are superior.
>
> My objection to Pirsig's response is his treating "an abstraction" as
> somehow inferior to "concrete". This is the nominalism of Pirsig that I
> object to. Basically, Pirsig is adopting the basic nominalist orientation
> that the more "sense perceptible" something is, the more real it is, in
the
> style of Dr. Johnson refuting Berkeley by kicking a stone. Now he (Pirsig}
> would expand that orientation to argue that "art and morality and even
> religious mysticism" belong in the concrete, and hence "more real" (and so
> distinguishes the MOQ from materialism), but would deny that to
> "abstraction".
>
> You should note that what I am saying is orthogonal to both Pirsig and
John
> Beasley. In fact, I used to debate John on this matter as well.
>
> - Scott
>
>
>
> 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 : Sat Nov 01 2003 - 21:37:00 GMT