Ham, Also I wanted to add that while Pirsig does not offer us any faith he does offer us the belief in our own expereince and the power to derrive value for the individual.
He gives the kick in the pants to go figure it out on your own because no one can tell you what it is all about. Only the individual can decide what their own expereince means. Trying to tell people their purpose and meaning allways seems to go awry. ________________________________ From: X Acto <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 8:42:19 AM Subject: Re: [MD] The SOM/MOQ discrepancy. Greetings Ham, I derrived that statement in opposition to yours which, I quote: "The mistake of Pirsig and his interpretors is to posit Value (Quality) as primary to existence, thereby rejecting the individual subject without whose realization there would be no value." I maintain that we Pirsigians can validate our statement via expereince. If we deprive our biological values the self dissolves into unconsciousness and perhaps enihlation, deprived of the value of oxygene. This is simply one of many examples which rest apon the concept that there is a value requirement for the self to exist and function normally. I think what you might be expressing is the neo-platonic ideal of the soul and how it relates and returns to the Paremindean "One". Now if you argue that "value" and oxygene are simply metaphors for the process of being aware then that self same logic may apply to your own theories making this merely an exercise in the art of pursuasion of belief. But the pragmatic truth remains in expereince, deprevation of certain values will cause one self to dissolve. thank you for the opportunity Ron ________________________________ From: Ham Priday <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 5:54:56 PM Subject: Re: [MD] The SOM/MOQ discrepancy. Greetings, Ron -- > Hello Ham, very nicely done. > Although logically certain, your concept of being is empty > of content. No sense perception illustrates this truth. > Your value is a judgement of pure thought, not experience. I don't see how you could possibly come up that that conclusion from anything I've said. The "content" or essence of being is Value. Value is sensed psycho-emotionally by the individual self, which is a value-sensible agent. What it "perceives" as existence is value objectivized as being by experience and intellection. There is no "pure thought", since all thought and experience is relational and differentiated. How is my ontology "empty"? Not only is it meaningful from the human perspective, it offers a primary source of creation and a "valuistic purpose" for the life experience, neither of which is suggested in Pirsig's MoQ. --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/ 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/
