At 02:46 AM 2/9/2009, you wrote:
MD
Marsha has read McWatt's paper and is impressed.
Excerpt from the paper:
"Therefore, for Pirsig, immediate experience (or Quality) is
experience where there is no distinction between what is
experienced and the act of experiencing itself."
OK, the basic argument in ZAMM is a pre-existing reality before the
subject becomes aware of the objective world. Thus the pre-
something (now called Quality) must necessarily be the DQ that
spawns static qualities. In the first sketch the static part was just the
S/O (called "intellect"). The mystery is the why postulate that DQ
spawns the MOQ and remains unscathed outside of metaphysics.
Quality is the changing flux of reality that logically comes
before any conceptual distinctions such as subjects and
objects are made. The concepts of subject and object are
commonly confused with the essence of reality because they
have become such a common apparatus for describing,
understanding and analysing that reality.
"Before language" is valid in the MOQ where the basic distinction is
Dynamic/Static and where language can be a static social pattern, but
not in the SOM where the basic distinction (in this case) is
language/reality. SOM's paradox-creating nature immediately shows
that nothing can be before language. Anthony obviously spots the
flaw, but merely reinforces it.
This is not to say conceptualisation in itself is a problem (for
the MOQ is a set of concepts) but the confusion of concepts
for reality itself is.
Conceptualisation is very much a problem in the language/reality
variety of SOM that Pirsig suddenly wants the MOQ to be subordinate
to .....shown in the Quality/MOQ super- metaphysics. What medium
did Pirsig use to show that there is a Quality outside/before language?
Either I have fallen off my rocking chair or ..?
Greetings Bo,
And how else would RMP explain the MoQ than by using a language we
conventional share? How does your explanation, the SOL explanation
demonstrate meta-MoQ perspective without the use of a conventionally
shared language? Honestly, I just don't see your major
problem. Please explain this devastating paradox and why it
destroys MOQ. Then please explain how your SOL version rectifies the
problem. I really am trying to understand. I just don't get why it
should knock you off your rocker.
Marsha
p.s. Ron if you can explain Bo's problem to me in simple language I
would appreciate the help. I really don't get it.
.
_____________
Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.........
.
.
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/
