RE: MD When is a society a good society?

From: Destination Quality (planetquality@hotmail.com)
Date: Sat Mar 06 2004 - 10:30:24 GMT

  • Next message: Platt Holden: "Re: MD Quality and In-e-quality"

    Hi Paul,

    >From: "Paul Turner" <paulj.turner@ntlworld.com>
    >Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
    >To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    >Subject: RE: MD When is a society a good society?
    >Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 21:56:50 -0000
    >
    >Chris
    >
    >Chris said:
    >pssst, i will let you in on a secret - there are no levels just as there
    >are no Kantian categories.

    >Paul:
    >I don't understand your comparison. Has Pirsig, or anyone else, ever
    >said that the static levels are innate a priori concepts?

    Chris:

    I never said innate, I just said apriori. Makes me wonder if you understand
    me when I say Kantian categories, are you familiar with Kant?. It does not
    matter whether Pirsig said it or not, this may sound haughty but I just look
    at at the two words: STATIC LEVELS. Nothing or 'nothink' is static. What do
    you do when you say that something is static? You fixate it, that is what
    all metaphysicians do, fixating. Do you really think when somebody says
    'contingent (static) levels' that that makes any sense at all? Further if
    the levels would not be apriori the there should be ways to check that by
    empirical means; how do we do that? Have you ever noticed the aporetic
    character of the discussions when it comes to discerning what (events,
    'things', developments etc..) belongs to which level? Ever wondered why? And
    where are these levels to be found, where does this 'perspective' come from?
    There is only one 'level': the biological.

    >Chris said:
    >A priori levels are platonic forms
    >
    >Paul:
    >Again, "a priori levels," from where did you get this idea?

    Chris: See above

    >Chris said:
    >Pirsig indeed is a platonist, a neoplatonist actually. Does the name
    >Plotinus ring a bell?
    >
    >Paul:
    >Yes, I think Pirsig has said that Plotinus is the closest system to his
    >MOQ. I think it is a mistake to jump from a similarity with Plotinus to
    >an equation with Plato though. It is this kind of over-eager
    >categorisation that destroys originality and hinders understanding.

    Chris: Ok that was not entirely fair; but tho whome it wasn't? I reasoned
    from the usual understanding of Plato, not from Plato more sec., hence the
    Greek word 'Idea'. I drop the charges and will stick to transcendental
    forms, or neoplatonic forms, my apologies.

    Chris

    PS Matt: Your post is in need of a more extensive reply and I did not
    understand the last part but my answer will be there in a day.

    _________________________________________________________________
    MSN Zoeken, voor duidelijke zoekresultaten! http://search.msn.nl

    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 Mar 06 2004 - 10:33:25 GMT