> DS wrote: > I see no reason to believe that Pirsig and Whitehead are pointing to > anything different than Hobbes et al. They are all pointing to the feelings > that come before words, feelings that are the meaning of words.
MP: David, I am on board with you about the relationship of Hobbes, Locke to RMP's MoQ. But would note that RMP [MoQers, correct me if I'm wrong please] also ascribes Quality as relevant to non-biological value patterns. A rock is [albeit simply] a Quality driven static value pattern. How does a rock have a Hobbesian "experience" of Quality? Hobbes approach remains within an SOM context and can only be so. This to me is the beauty of RMP's Quality; its like Hobbes on crack. While Hobbes' empiricism certainly relates to RMP's MoQ on the biological static value pattern level, it is meaningless to those lesser patterns which RMP's MoQ manages to incorporate in its reductive simplicity. Hobbes' is in that sense an entirely subjective understanding of reality, where RMP's translates the same approach into an objective frame of reference. Every"thing" is related to Quality, cannot be what it is *but* for it. That goes way past Hobbes, Locke et al. but with complete consistency to the notions of such of philosophical predecessors. (IMO of course) MP ---- "Don't believe everything you think." 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/
