Hi Bo/Matt/DMB What comes first for the MOQ is the DQ/SQ split. Without this there could be either determinism or chaos and instead we have both DQ & SQ.
So with MOQ we have an evolving and open description of experience. And so we live. But how do you live in an evolving and open life? Well you learn the SQ as well as you can and see how you can live with it, how some of it is good and some of the SQ is bad, and make use of it. But what of DQ? Well as life is open and has many possibilities, you have to choose. And if you are to choose you have to decide what is of value. And we are back to the Socratic question of what is the good life. There are many lives we could live and it might be a good idea to try and live the one that will be most fulfilling. Seems to me 'what is the good' is the first question of phiolsophy. We also need to understand the SQ best we can and know what is possible and impossible (for now). Seems to me truth is about SQ and is a secondary question after what do we value? And as we evolve and expand what is possible, then, for us, truth changes and is not a static 'thing' that can ever be found. David M ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2007 9:13 AM Subject: Re: [MD] subject/object: pragmatism > Matt, DMB possibly David M. > > On 19 Oct. Matt wrote to DMB: > >> Your stance looks to me like a pro-experience-talk position, and you >> then paint me as being pro-language/anti-experience. (snip) > > Da foreign professor wil naw expond: > > All philosophy's quest is about finding THE truth. In moqspeak > this search is an intellectual - or SOM - fallout, I know of no (in > moqtalk) "social" culture that has this urge. No Muslim or Jew or > Christian question God as existence's ground, it doesn't cross > their minds, if they doubt it's about another God being stronger. > > What Pirsig finally saw was this context that intellect = search for > objective truth and that it emerged with the Greeks. However, > Pirsig lived in SOM-land and had to follow its rules and find a still > deeper truth which he had found with Value. He saw a likeness in > William James Reality=Experience thus Experience=Quality. > > Now, it's not difficult to point to other candidates to reality's most > fundamental fundament and one such is Language. It's > impossible to counter the assertion that all is language - all of it, > every last bit (except that it is language too, but let that be) > Another candidate is Consciousness (remember Scott Roberts?), > it is unassailable and just as credible - as Quality - as reality's > ground and some metaphysics could have been built on. > > But as I have pointed out several times a MOL or a MOC (I once > made a list of the various MOXs that have been suggested up > through the years) divided the D/S way with similar S levels > wouldn't add anything. Whether Reality= Quality or > Reality=Reality does not matter so much as the Dynamic/Static > divide in contrast to the Subjective/Objective one. > >> With regards to radical empiricism, this isn't quite right. As I see >> it, once we become radical empiricists, it _doesn't matter_ whether we >> talk about what we experience or we talk about what we talk about. It >> simply doesn't matter. > > Matt is right and if Rorty (I know that David M compares Hegel > with Pirsig) and whoever had suggested the D/S split of their > fundamentals and S-levels of X they would have transcended > SOM, but Pirsig stands alone. Had he just seen his own > enormous achievement. > > Bo > > > > > 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/ > 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/
