Re: MD matt said scott said

From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Wed Nov 19 2003 - 18:07:58 GMT

  • Next message: David MOREY: "Re: MD When is a metaphysics not a metaphysics?"

    Matt
    Not sure you're right here. I am quite happy with the idea that value
    is a component of all experience, and as such is connected with the
    very possibility of any experience at all. It is essentially the same as
    Heidegger's
    use of Care, close to what is meant by intentionality.

    regards
    David M

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "MATTHEW PAUL KUNDERT" <mpkundert@students.wisc.edu>
    To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 2:33 AM
    Subject: Re: MD matt said scott said

    > Platt,
    >
    > Platt said:
    > The MOQ adds "value" to the physical senses Matt lists. Value is our sixth
    sense.
    >
    > Matt said:
    > As I read Pirsig, Quality is a redescription of reality into value, not an
    addition of value. The physical senses are still the only senses we have,
    they are just "inorganic static patterns of value" senses.
    >
    > Pirsig said:
    > "In the third box are the biological patterns: senses of touch, sight
    hearing, smell and taste. The Metaphysics of Quality follows the empirical
    tradition here in saying that the senses are the starting point of reality,
    but -- all importantly -- it includes a sense of value. Values are
    phenomena. To ignore them is to misread the world."
    >
    > Platt said:
    > Could anything be clearer?
    >
    > Matt:
    > You're a fan of logic, right Platt. So riddle me this: if Quality is
    Reality, i.e. if value is EVERYTHING, how can we have an _extra_ sense for
    value, if all of our senses are already senses for value?
    >
    > Ambiguity in the word, perhaps? Yah, I think so. In the SODV paper,
    unlike in ZMM and Lila, I bet Pirsig is using "value" in the regular ole'
    dictionary definition way, which means its limited to, say, "social values"
    or "dictionary definition morality".
    >
    > So, what was clear again?
    >
    > I'll tell you: 1) it wasn't clear to me what you meant, so I guessed and
    2) you aren't very good at clarifying because you simply added what your
    were referring to without any attention to what I said.
    >
    > Sorry, <sniff>. I had a bad day.
    >
    > 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
    >
    >

    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 : Wed Nov 19 2003 - 19:18:48 GMT