From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Sat Nov 01 2003 - 22:13:44 GMT
DMB: You're confusing Pirsig's DQ, the primary
reality (DQ), with objective reality (sq).
David M: please try and explain this to me.
Quality=reality=experience=only reality=one reality
Primary/secondary reality? -where does Pirsig mention these?
SQ=objective reality -what does this mean? subject-object distinction
is a metaphysics I thought, where we get into all sorts of
confusion about what is most real (primary/secondary).
And I think the whole idea is to talk about reality in terms of either
SQ or DQ? Where is subjective reality in this interesting metaphysics
of yours DMB? DMB you seem very confused to me.
please unscramble
Regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Buchanan" <DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2003 8:49 PM
Subject: RE: MD What makes an idea dangerous?
> Andy, Platt and all thread followers:
>
> Andy said:
> 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." ...
>
> dmb says:
> I wouldn't blame the MOQ. I mean, the question is far too vague. Dangerous
> to who or what? What kind of danger? The Doctor has ideas that are
dangerous
> if you are a germ, but we humans are quite happy about those same ideas.
> Maybe we should get specific here. I'm not saying there are EASY answers
in
> the MOQ, just that we might get more out of it if we asked different
> questions.
>
> Andy said:
> 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.
>
> dmb says:
> You've completely misrepresented my position here. I certainly do NOT
> "combine truth with the primary reality." That's not even close to what
I've
> been saying. You've lumped me in with someone I disagree with about
> everything and taken a vague and general swat at the both of us. I wish
> you'd have responded to the things I wrote to you in detail. That approach
> might have prevented such a wild misrepresentation. In any case, its quite
> clear to me that Pirsig's version of truth (high quality intellectual
> patterns) is not the primary reality (DQ).
>
> Andy continued:
> 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.
>
> dmb says:
> This is hard to follow, but I think I've spotted an important mistake, the
> same one that Matt is making. You're confusing Pirsig's DQ, the primary
> reality (DQ), with objective reality (sq). This confusion has lead you to
> believe that Rorty and Pirsig are taking about the same thing, but they
are
> not even in the same ballpark. The "correspondence" that neo-prags deny is
> NOT between the mystical reality and our descriptions, but between our
> descriptions and the rest of static reality. The neo-praggy is denying the
> distinction between our descriptions and the world "out there". Its a
denial
> of objective truth in favor of intersubjective agreement. It hard to even
> imagine how a self-described atheist and physicalist could be talking
about
> the mystical reality, let alone in such terms. This neo-praggy denial
simply
> has nothing to do with mysticism or DQ.
>
> More later,
> dmb
>
>
> 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 - 22:17:26 GMT