From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Tue Feb 10 2004 - 09:09:04 GMT
MOQists
On 8 Feb. David Buchanan wrote:
> Matt, Paul and all MOQers:
> Matt said:
> Pirsig posited value behind objective and subjective. I take this to
> mean that he's dissolving the contrast between them. ..This, I think,
> is his move towards intersubjective agreement. Value, as the
> dissolving category (if you will), is a continuum of intersubjective
> agreement.
Yes, Pirsig of ZMM did just that. In his words "the Quality (event)
is the cause of subjects and objects". Something that in the
MOQ means: "The subject becoming aware of objects" ...in other
words the intellectual perception of Quality - in my opinion.
However, this does NOT mean a dissolution of the VALUE of the
S/O contrast, but the dissolution of the metaphysical (SOM)
contrast. And yes, it does mean a move towards the subjective
.....if one sees the MOQ as a better "idea" than the SOM "idea" in
an idea-intellect. I'll explain it farther down.
> Paul replied:
> Again I think intersubjective agreement, in the MOQ, translates into
> varying degrees of social and intellectual quality.
You don't counter Matt's argument by this. His is that the MOQ
itself "lock stock and barrel" is part of the "intersubjective" make-
up, not two static levels.
> dmb says:
> I think Paul is right. In the MOQ, intersubjective agreement and the
> MOQ's top two levels represent two different ideas about the same
> thing. Further, the kind of value or Quality that gives rise to the
> static levels is Dynamic and so the assertion that "value..is a
> continuum of intersubjective agreement" demonstrates a lack of
> comprehension about Pirisg's most important terms. Without an
> understanding of these basic Pirsigisms, no comparison to Rorty or any
> other philosopher is possible. It appears that Matt literally doesn't
> know what he's talking about.
Paul is always right .. for DMB ;-). Please report to the bridge
those who understand the above. Is this the MOQ that children
are supposed to understand and that ...makes things fabulously
more simple? As said, in the view that the MOQ is the best
INTELLECTUAL pattern and SOM a bad one Matt has you
trapped. The above smokescreeen is useless.
From ZMM we know that Pirsig identifies his Quality idea with the
Aretê of the Sophists, thus it is plain that Protagoras' "Man the
Measure of All Things" must be intimately connected with the
MOQ and if you posit it as the best intellectual pattern (in the
idea-intellect) you are back in the bosom of "Mattagoras".
However, with the MOQ as something beyond intellect, things are
safe and sound. Intellect's value of "truth over man" (rationality)
prevails as a static value - immutable as static values are, while
the MOQ is immune to accusations of subjectivity: It may be
"man-made" in the sense of having its origin in the intellectual
level, but not from the "mind" in the RortyanRortyan sense.
EVERYTHING is now properties of the MOQ.
This looks more and more like a "re-enactment" of the Ancient
Greek conflict - just one level higher.
IMO.
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Feb 10 2004 - 09:25:49 GMT