DMB
1 Mar. you came to Ron's rescue after :
I had said:
> > ...But seriously you may have a point, Pirsig's "obsession" was/is
> > Reality=Quality issue and he obviously thinks that the Q-reality can be
> > "assembled" many ways and still be a Quality Metaphysics. He even says
> > somewhere that SOM is a "moq. This is so outrageous that I hardly
> > believe my eyes.
DMB::
> This "outrageous" claim is exactly what I've been trying to explain. It
> has everything to do with the other claim we're debating, namely that
> the MOQ is different from Quality it talks about.
How can the MOQ be different from the the reality it describes
unless one is inside SOM where descriptions (by language) is
regarded as a subjective reflection of the reality it describes? And
SOM is what the MOQ rejects FYI.
Here it must be stressed that DQ surely once was before language
because the two lower levels are before the social level but after
that DQ freely used language in its service. This however is the
true DQ/SQ dichotomy not the somish Quality-as-pre-
concept/MOQ-as-concept one..
> It has everything to do with the difference between DQ and sq. These
> are just different ways to express the same point, the same idea, the
> same distinction. Pirsig's paint gallery analogy is yet another way of
> saying this.
As said above the Quality/MOQ distinction is crypto-SOM.
> The MOQ and SOM are different ways to "assemble" reality
> in the sense that they are rival intellectual descriptions of the same
> primary empirical reality.
SOM does not postulate any pre-reality, it postulates one
subjective and one objective reality.Full stop! Then along comes
the radical pragmatics who postulate a dynamic something ahead
of the said S/O. In ZAMM Pirsig called it DQ and the S/O fallout he
called SOM (subtitled "intellect") in LILA enlarged to the known 4-
level range of static fall-outs Thus the MOQ is
DYNAMIC QUALITY/STATIC QUALITY
and in its hindsight we know that it was the static intellectual level
that introduced the S/O distinction, and in its role as SOM
professed to be reality itself.
> And there can be any number of such intellectual constructions.
Give me just one example of the alleged mass of "intellectual
constructions". Please. Except the MOQ which isn't intellectual, but
has intellect as a sub-set.
> Ironically, SOM says there can be only one
> correct construction, the one that corresponds with objective reality,
> with the pre-existing external world that we know through the senses
> and by thinking about what the senses provide.
Yes, for the very reason that SOM is MOQ's intellectual level. The
notion of a subject confronting an objective world.
> In Kantian language, this would be the world of the
> things-in-themselves. In science, this is the material world, the
> physical universe.
Agree except that Kant's "things-for-us" is as much SOM as
"things-in-themselves".
> This is not to be equated with the primary empirical
> reality of the MOQ. The pre-intellectual experience is not raw sense
> data or the initial impression of a physical reality.
Ditto and ditto addendums
> All of that is just conceptual and comes later and then only if you
> live in a culture like ours, in a culture that constructs things that
> way.
Now you are on the "conceptual spree" again. Kant did not speak
about things-in-themselves as pre-conceptual and things-for-us as
conceptual. He was not under the illusion of anything NOT
conveyed by language ....language as in SOM, and as the
epitome of SOM Kant surely saw it that way
And the rest is just more of the same, you constantly returning to
DQ as pre-conceptual and the MOQ as conceptual. I.e. forcing
the MOQ under SOM.
Only your last "salvo"
> This might come across as mere insult, but I have to say that your
> ideas are not difficult to overcome because they're powerful but
> because they are tangled up with so very many misconceptions that
> grappling with them requires a careful untangling of just about every
> single term you use. It's just a huge amount of work and what's worse
> is that no amount of effort has any effect. Not on you, anyway. And so
> frankly, I have no longer have any expectations that you'll budge, not
> even an inch. But hopefully other MOQers will get something out of it.
Don't worry about insults, I find it fantastic that there are people
who care for ideas, compared to our contemporaries we surely are
a bizarre lot. That much said why should I budge to you who at
times show such a feeble grasp of the Quality Idea. f.ex. ZAMM's
"Campfire ghost talk" and the Gravity argument. These you
omitted from the previous post after having revealed such an
embarrassing misinterpretation.
Bodvar
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/
