From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Fri Dec 19 2003 - 21:26:18 GMT
Hi Bo
I take Pirsig as saying that quality/experience is cut into
subject-object for the purposes of analysis. This leaves
value/activity/purpose on the side of the subject and quantifiable aspects
of quality on the side of objects. He proposes SQ and DQ
as a form of analysis where value exists on both sides so that
value can be part of our analysis of the SQ aspects of quality.
Leaving DQ as a purer abstraction of the holistic concept
of quality, so pure it is in fact the concentration of all aspects of
quality that are contingent/changing/creative and therefore beyond
analysis and conceptual grasp.
Now where do we introduce intellect into this? Intellect is clearly
about conceptual analysis. MOQ is very intellectual and deliberate
about where it makes the cut of quality into SQ/DQ. In fact SOM is less
intellectual in that, I would argue, it has been constructed over a long
period
of time, is assumed in a great deal of our language, probably relates to the
construction of the ego, has played a part in the construction of
individualism,
has been supported and developed by Capitalism, has worked in partnership
with the sciences, etc, etc, and is hard to ascribe to intellect, in as far
as we ascribe
the activities of intellect to individual thinkers, problematic and perhaps
wrong as this is.
So Bo, where does intellect come into all this?
regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: <skutvik@online.no>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 4:04 AM
Subject: Re: MD MoQ versions
> Matt and All
>
> 17 Dec. MATTHEW PAUL KUNDERT wrote:
>
> > > Paul, Wim, Steve, Bo,
> > > Everybody pretty much knows how I feel about this whole thing,
> > > versions of the MoQ and such. I read something by Rorty, though,
> > > that kinda' captures the whole thing for me. In a response to an
> > > article by Jacques Bouveresse, Rorty begins talking about his
> > > relation to Derrida. Everyone should be able to see the connection:
>
> > > Let me conclude this section of my response by saying something more
> > > about the particular case of Derrida. As Bouveresse notes, Derrida
> > > has not said what he thinks of my attempt to read him as one reads
> > > Proust. It is quite possible, even likely, that he hates it.
> > > However this may be, I entirely agree with Bouveresse that Freud
> > > _would_ hate to be read as I read him -- with no attention to his
> > > pretensions to "science," and thus little interest in, for example,
> > > Grunbaum's criticisms of him. But even if Derrida's attitude is
> > > "God save me from 'friends' like Rorty," my admiration and respect
> > > for him would probably not deter me from continuing to read him, and
> > > to write about him in much the same vein. I find much (though not
> > > everything) that Derrida writes engrossing and exciting, as I do
> > > much (though not everything) that Freud wrote. As with Freud, I use
> > > Derrida's writings as grist
>
> > > Reading authors against their own expectations, against the grain of
> > > their intentions, is often a profitable exercise, no matter how
> > > annoyed the authors get at finding themselves so read.
>
> Maybe you intend it as some support, but I much prefer
> accusations of having distorted Pirsig's MOQ, these I may refute,
> while the Rortyan approach is completely sterile. I still uphold that
> there is a conclusion from the original Phaedrus' ideas that the
> author of ZMM did not care/dare draw/invoke. This point is neither
> affirmed nor denied in LILA, because the intellectual level isn't
> defined, but actually distorted by some annotations in LC.
>
> What I am talking about is the initial insight, namely that
> INTELLECT is where Quality creates subjects and objects! This is
> the most pregnant part of the ZMM where he has the SOM by its
> jugular vein. The levels weren't made up at that stage, but in the
> MOQ proper intellect becomes the VALUE of the S/O distinction.
> Any attempt to change intellect into anything else brings the SOM
> back and destroys the MOQ. Thus I don't read Pirsig against
> himself, on the contrary, I try to save his initial insight.
>
> Thanks Matt, but no thanks.
> 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
>
>
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 : Fri Dec 19 2003 - 22:17:05 GMT