[Ron]
> I feel value is a function, that which happens when subject meets
> object. No subjects and objects, no value.
> I interpret most of you saying that MOQ's patterns of value are
> distinct from the subjects and objects it refers to and therefore
> subjects and objects can be "dropped" leaving only the value. I think
> frequently SOM becomes synonomous with true/false logic in this forum.
[Ham]
Cusanus, Heidegger, and a few other philosophers postulated that
existence is the "actualized" mode or relational phase of an absolute
principle or potentiality which is non-relational. According to
Heidegger, existence is the differentiated "appearance" of the Absolute,
reduced or "negated" to a finite perspective.
[Ron]
This is what James was getting at with "pure experience" a concept
almost identical with dynamic quality.
[Ham]
In your referenced essay, William James almost apologizes for his
inability to validate Consciousness. His pragmatic persuasion will not
allow him to accept a primary source. Likewise, Robert Pirsig treats
Quality as if it were the "universal" source, but in deference to
logical positivism will not presume a primary metaphysical source. But
since he equates Quality with Value, and both are relative to subjective
experience, the MoQ, for all its level parsing, has failed to overcome
the duality of existence.
I think you may be exaggerating the significance of these notions. All
knowledge is a subjective perspective of objective reality. Bo
acknowledges subjective awareness ("intellect") as critical to
experiential existence.
Bob does not. Neither has "transcended" anything, let alone duality.
I like your initial statement, Ron. It's only when you attempt to fit
it into the MoQ thesis that it loses cogency. You've made some good
points.
Try not to let the MoQ influence your conclusions.
[Ron]
Granted, I may be exaggerating the significance, the idea of
intellectual awareness of perception has to
count for something over common unaware intellectual perception.
I think perhaps it can fit together somehow,this is why the "madness"
parts of his story are so intriguing.
To cut Pirsig some slack on this, the fella did receive 1.4 jigawatts to
the frontal lobe
on several occasions for following this line of thinking out, and I'd
wager he's a little
more than hesitent on condoning following his lead. When Bob did begin
to transcend value sense
and become catatonic,I sense he was in a realm of oneness, I remember
something to the effect of
him even admitting a sense of freedom. Maybe Pirsig denies this because
he knows that way lies
madness, out of bounds of anything relative and is a bit hypersensitive
about even "going there"
in debate.
Thanks Ham
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
