Hi Marsha.
On 8 Feb. you spoke:
> You seem so attached to the subject-object perspective, I am
> wondering if you have anything to say of 'value'?
Yes, I am obsessed with the said issue, that's because .... ok, no
more! Regarding value I must admit that it - as reality outside the
MOQ - has become the greates obstacle. I begin by quoting
Joseph Maurer:
> > Pirsig argues that Aristotle erred by not seeing the value in
> > existence.
This says it, the reason that the MOQ is a value metaphysics (it's
basic split DQ/SQ) is Phaedrus' (ZAMM) rebellion against the
valueless, cold, impartial, objective monster he had come to call
SOM and whose origin he traced to Antique Greece, also its
coming to power at the cost of the old Aretê that he identified with
his own Value.
However, latter-day Pirsig seems bent on dismissing that the
Value Idea was the result of any wrestling with SOM, he wants it
to be a holy light descending on to Phaedrus' head (from his
"Summary" of 2005)
"If you follow the development of the Metaphysics of
Quality as it is explained in "Zen and the Art of
Motorcycle Maintenance" you see that it did NOT start
with the question, "What is the best alternative to subject-
object metaphysics?" It started with the question of "What
is quality?"
Of course he did not ask anything like "..what's the best
alternative to the SOM" because at that stage there was no SOM,
like everybody else he took the mind/matter divide to be one
given reality. But just as plain is it from young Phaedrus' story
that what brought him down were the absurd conclusions that his
relentless intellectual (S/O reasoning) quest brought about.
Pirsig's tuning down SOM's role( in the creation of the MOQ) is
his beloved Value, that it had permeated existence always, and
whose last stand was the Aretê of Homeric Greece. (the
"Summary")
"The Metaphysics of Quality itself is static and should be
separated from the Dynamic Quality it talks about. Like
the rest of the printed philosophic tradition it doesn't
change from day to day, although the world it talks about
does."
But this results in the untenable VALUE outside the MOQ
(because the MOQ is language) Why Pirsig does this after
correctly pointing out that great theories create new realities
(Newton creating the gravity explanation of why things fall to the
ground) is beyond me. Why not follow up and declare the MOQ
creating the Value explanation of existence and thereby
circumventing all objections? As it's now it's lame
Why I don't speak about value so much is that I take it for
granted. (ZAMM)
No one is fanatically shouting that the sun is going to rise
tomorrow. They know it's going to rise tomorrow. When
people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious
faiths or any other kinds of dogmas or goals, it's always
because these dogmas or goals are in doubt.
it's the application of Value I'm interested in.
Enough
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/
