Ron: Keeping Pirsig in mind when we use the term "static", static refers to both mental and physical, both S and O. Thus it is not "purely" mental. but expereince as a whole.
[Krimel] Again I am afraid this doesn't help much. The original claim was that patterns are conceptual. Aren't concepts purely intellectual? [Ron] When Pirsig places emphasis on "pre-intellect" he exhalts inductive expereince over deductive reason. Declaring that it serves as a more accurate standard of truth. When we deduce we create abstractions(entities) and manipulate them within laws of operation (axioms). [Krimel] In what sense is Pirsig saying anything like "pre-intellectual" refers to inductive experience. More to the point what is inductive experience? Perhaps we don't use the same logic book but inductive "logic" in my book means deriving general rules from the observation of particulars. Deductive logic is applying general rules to particular instances. Also I don't understand axioms to be laws operations. I thought they where formal statements issued as givens without proof. They are initial assumptions. [Marsha earlier] Even 'experience' is an analogy. [Krimel earlier] Analogous to what? Ron earlier: Dynamic Quality [Krimel] So Dynamic Quality is an analogy for experience? [Ham earlier] Not if you understand that objects and events are phenomenal. They represent our intellectual constructs of Value (or what Pirsig calls "pre-intellectual experience"). Now, if you are regard Value as "mental", then everything is subjective and reality is, indeed, a solipsism. But this is not what Pirsig says. Instead, he equates Quality (Value) with Reality as primary to the S/O patterns of experiential existence. These "patterns" are phenomena -- the experienced "forms" of Value that we objectivize as Being. [Krimel earlier] You leave me wondering which meaning of phenomena you intend. In physics it means events in the external world. In philosophy it refers to purely mental events. Which do you mean or is the confusion intentional? You say that '"patterns" are phenomena,' I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. How does one "objectivize" anything? Ron: He means both, [Krimel] How does one legitimately use a term that has conflicting meanings in both senses at the same time? [Ron earlier] we objectivize when we take the menu for the food. when we take abstract entities as what IS and hold that as truth. [Krimel] Who does this? Who actually thinks that the phonological construction "duck" actually is a feathered web footed waddler? Do we "objectivize" when we take a menu to be a menu? 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/
