Magnus --
I guess you mean that Pirsig "doesn't", right?
Yes, sorry for the typo. My comment should read:
If being is your primary source, its experience as patterns
is simply explained as a result of the S/O split. This is the
ontology of Pantheism which views everything in the
universe as a part of the Whole (Being). However, Pirsig does not define
the primary source as Being, and neither do I.
Concerning my statement that "aesthetic value presupposes a sensible subject
and therefore does not transcend the S/O divide," you replied:
Your view of the Quality event seems to be one human
observing some object, and since that human is "sensible",
it can place various aesthetic value on that observation.
However, and please Ham, this is very important and not
something you can disprove with epistemological reasoning.
Quality, as used in the MoQ, does *not* require a "sensible"
subject. Quality is involved when a teacher is valuing english
essays, when dogs are detecting drugs on an airport, *and*
when a ball is dropped and starts falling to the ground.
Magnus, my epistemological reasoning tells me that the value of an English
essay requires a subject (the teacher) to judge it. Canine sensitivity to
drugs may be a trained ability that has practical value to the human
inspectors; its only value to the dogs is the biscuits they receive as a
reward for their findings. I see no value implied by a ball dropping to the
ground, unless you're telling me that gravity is a value, which (even if
true) has no epistemological relevance.
The logical problems are not inherent in the MoQ. They only appear when
using non-MoQ interpretations
for MoQ terms.
To the extent that the MoQ uses terms in an unconventional way, the
interpretations
are logically inconsistent and problematic for the author.
--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/
