Platt --
I know you would rather discuss international politics, but I can't let this
go unchallenged.
Until the subject (a pattern of values) symbolizes (with an intellectual
pattern of values) his realization (Dynamic Quality), the subject remains
mute. Thus, I can only speculate on what the subject "realizes." ...
You can only speculate on what your cat or another human being realizes.
But there can be no doubt as to what you as your own subject realizes. Are
we at least in agreement on this? If not, how do you define "realization"?
[Pirsig] believes in what you call subjects, but he calls them patterns of
value
consisting of inorganic, biological, social and intellectual patterns of
value. Remember: for Pirsig, the world is a moral order. Like he suggests,
when you see subjects and objects as interacting patterns of value, you
get
a whole different view of reality than seen through subject/object
spectacles.
Assuming your analysis of the MoQ's "subject" is correct, you have "patterns
of value" chasing after value. Whether the value being sought is "static"
or "dynamic", something is wrong with this circular epistemology. Simply
speaking, a value (or pattern of values) has no need for value, hence no
need (e.g,, desire or motivation) to interact with what it already is. This
throws Michael's concept of the subject "seeking transcendence" flat on its
face.
You haven't allowed for sensibility in this analysis. I define the subject
as value-sensibility, the basis of proprietary awareness and the driving
force of human action. I can't see that either of these attributes is
accounted for in Pirsig's epistemology. Perhaps you could explain how man
as a collection of value patterns is subjectively motivated toward a greater
("dynamic?") value. Or do you, like Bo, regard Intellect (the power of
knowing or realizing) as something beyond subjectivity?
Thanks, Platt.
Kindest regards,
Ham
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
And, speaking of concepts, doesn't it concern you that words pertaining
to
intellection -- such as awareness, cognition, consciousness,
conceptualization, and realization -- are virtually absent in Pirsig's
writings? Do you suppose this is because he doesn't believe in subjects,
or
because he doesn't want US to?
> Bo has defined intellect properly as the value of the subject/object
> division, a value you rigorously support. But from an MOQ perspective,
> what is more fundamental than the S/O division is the value.
True. Which is why I'm still talking to Bo, despite our "intellectual"
differences.
I would guess your value differences are wider than your intellectual
differences.
[Platt]
> Anyway, intellect has brought us such marvels as the Reid/Pelosi
stimulus
> (stealfromus) bill, proving Ben Franklin's observation: "So convenient
it
> is to be a rational creature, since it enables us to find or make a
reason
> for everything one has a mind to do."
[Ham]
We are in complete agreement there. We don't need "conspiracy theories"
when the strategy is so factually evident. After promising
"transparency"
and "non-partisan politics" our new President has rammed through Congress
the largest spending bill in U.S. history, concealing details from the
public and refusing to consider alternative measures. Less than a third
of
the $720 billion will provide tax credits to private businesses, the
legitimate source of jobs and investment, while the rest is a New Deal
spending package designed to benefit illegal immigrants and the
unemployable
that will do nothing to stimulate the economy.
As Rahm Emmanuel said last November, "Never let a crisis go to waste."
One
would have hoped that the Anointed One, who has been heralded as "the
most
intelligent president ever to assume office", would have the sense to
realize that you can't cure a deficit crisis by spending money you don't
have. Among future steps, already underway, will be pushing for the
"Fairness Doctrine" and making U.S. Census redistricting subject to White
House approval, instead of the Commerce Dept., thereby ensuring a
Democrat
victory in the next election. You and I know what "change" our new
leader
has in mind for the Obamanation. What troubles me is that no one seems
to
care.
Not only does no one seem to care about the flim-flams being perpetrated
by
Obama and his acolytes, but no one seems to care about an even more
frightening development -- the criminalization of free speech in Belgium,
supported by English who appear to have reverted to Chamberlain-style
appeasement. No need to go into all the details. Suffice it to point out
that Geert Wilders, a Dutch member of parliament, will be brought to trial
for making remarks about Islam that a court said would "effect the dignity
of Muslims." Wilders was later invited to England where he was detained
and
then deported back to Holland on the grounds that he would "threaten
community harmony."
The Wilders case shows that what began in academe, that supposed citadel
of intellectual freedom with its politically correct speech codes, has now
predictably and inevitably deteriorated to totalitarian censorship. The
way
the present generation has been indoctrinated, you and I know that what
used to occasion outrage at such an assault on basic freedom will never
happen.
Best regards,
Platt
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/
