Ron and moqtalk
5 May::
> Ron:
> The problem is that the English word "quality" that Pirsig re-defined
> As (Quality), central to his metaphysic, is STILL a word for
experience.
> A linguistic conceptual understanding of experience as a whole.
> Not the whole of experience itself. It sits outside of the cultural
> Intellectual paradigm because it suggests understanding terms in
> An active/passive form rather than the cultural status quo of
> Subjects and Objects in linguistic terminology.
Bo:
"Quality as a word FOR experience" Language is to ourselves what
the ocean is to the fish (even a flying fish can't escape it) it must
either
be kept out or a Metaphysics of Language must be constructed. Your
notion of language as secondary regarding experience is SOM to the
core.
Ron:
So, your notion is that there is no experience that is not intellectual?
> Ron:
> I think he began using his own terminology on his own theory
> And began confusing himself in his own MoQ paradox. when he tried
> To explain it, the worse it became.
Bo:
IMO the fault was not using his own terminology, but trying to make
the MOQ understandable with/from SOM's terminology.
Ron:
Conceded, you do have a point.
> There are many messages in his books if we connect them we can see
where
> He was going and what he meant but he got tripped up in the paradigm
> Shift that if he were aware of he would have explained and avoided.
> And we'd have an MoQ that would be of unquestionable validity and
common
> sense. But until it issues from his pen, we are paralyzed in
conflicting
> Meaning.
Bo:
Agree!!
Ron:
> I think I'm going to take it upon myself to write him.
Bo:
Good luck, but you must be a bit more "sober" than your usual soaring
style.
Ron:
Eh, I'm me, can't help that. Like I said I may at least give him a
Chuckle. I'm not a philosopher, I'm more a mechanic. I have this
Drive to fix stuff and make it work. Perhaps it is my failing.
Trouble-shooting is a specialty of mine.
> If anything I might give him a good chuckle. I know he doesn't
> Want to chat about this stuff anymore but we can just straighten
> This one issue it would all be good to go. Empirically it would
> Be much more difficult to refute his ideas because it would be
> Perceived as the ultimate In objectivity. I sense this is the angle
> Bo is coming from with SOL but we wouldn't need SOL if people
> Embraced the notion that DQ/SQ as a more accurate description of
> Commonly held s/o Split explaining the mind/body paradox as a
> Descriptive phenom.
Bo:
It's a bit difficult to follow you, at least where I come from is that
regarding metaphysics , they are no subjective descriptions of an
objective reality (this merely perpetuates SOM) rather reality itself
in
the old mythological sense. Your "DQ/SQ as a more accurate S/O" is
what must be avoided. OK, the MOQ is out of intellect (out of SOM)
and were "in its service" at first, i.e. professed to be the most
objective
description of reality yet conceived, but, it must start a life of its
own
and the first act is to leave the S/O pattern and start wielding its own
DQ/SQ.
Ron:
Exactly, when we replace s/o with DQ/SQ we conceptualize a universe in
motion. We drop the solid state perception and conceptualize
dynamically.
> Of language. Language is part and parcel Of the social/intellectual
> entity of culture and as per Pirsigs Own description of those levels,
> commonly held as subjective Experience.
Bo:
What has subjective to do in a metaphysics whose first postulate is to
reject the S/O split? It's maddening.
Ron:
This goes back to the talking about MoQ terms using s/o meaning you
Were referring to.
> The beauty of explaining the levels in DQ/SQ Magnus's "Hole"
disappears
> with social and biological Inter-merging with one another.
BO:
At least agreement about Magnus!
> Static patterns manifesting themselves Dynamically. Huge explanatory
> power in meaning in this way rather Than the S/O method of divided
> entities or levels acting upon one another. Which has weak explanatory
> power. The evolutionary aspect falls right into place in this Method
of
> understanding because it places the subjective (dynamic) Experience at
> the head of the hierarchy, self preservation Is the highest good. In
> evolutionary terms. Based in immediate Experience The most moral
> pattern. It all starts to come together In cohesive meaning, MoQ
> concepts supporting one another Rather than conflicting.
Bo:
Yes, many puzzle pieces fall into place with the MOQ but NOT by
equating DQ with subjectivity and SQ with objectivity if that is your
message.
Ron:
No, I just agree with you that S/O is the same split as DQ/SQ.
I really see that now.
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/
