Ham said "My criticism [of the MoQ] concerns the flawed epistemology that an aesthetic sensibility such as "beauty", "importance", "quality" or "value" can stand independently as the ultimate reality."
It can't Ham, but neither can anything else actually be an independent foundation, nothing we can name anyway - that's the point. The groundlessness takes some getting used to, so we might has well give this ineffible thing a non-misleading name, whilst we get on with the practicalities of life, a name that doesn't suggest something fixed, tangible and objectifiable. Ian On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 11:57 PM, Ham Priday <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Steve -- > > > >> Quality as a monism is an intellectual postulate. You can accept it and >> see where it takes you, or you can leave it be. This forum is concerned with >> seeing where this intellectual postulate takes us. If you are unwilling to >> accept it for the sake of argument and at least try to understand what >> Pirsig means by it then your posts will be of little interest to most people >> here. >> >> In other words, if your arguments took the form "if we accept this >> postulate it leads to these problems" then I would be interested in the >> discussion. But yours always take the form "I don't want to accept this >> postulate because that is just not how I understand the term value." You are >> playing a different game than the other members of this forum. There is just >> nothing to say to someone who is not interested in Pirsig's Quality. > > My interest in the MoQ is longstanding, largely because my philosophy also > has a valuistic premise. I think I do understand what Pirsig means by > Quality, and have made a sincere attempt to accept it as a metaphysical > "monism". Unfortunately, for reasons that I've cited, the Quality thesis > falls short of this distinction. This is not just because the author has > distorted the meaning of "value", or that the terms "dynamic" and "static" > are contraposed. My criticism is not about semantics. Rather, it concerns > the flawed epistemology that an aesthetic sensibility such as "beauty", > "importance", "quality" or "value" can stand independently as the ultimate > reality. > > While this criticism may be outside of your personal ballpark, I believe it > has a legitimate place in a forum dedicated to a "free-ranging discussion" > of the problems and applications of RMP's Metaphysics of Quality. Your > complaint is duly noted, Steve. If I have overstepped my bounds, I shall of > course abide by the house rules. > > Regards, > 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/
