Andre] > > What is wrong with the idealist framework? Nothing really, but the MoQ has, > supposedly, done away with the 'it all springs from the mind/ it all > springs > from matter dichotomy. >
John] You are assuming that idealism represents a mental construction. As I understand idealism, it is a mental construction of an existential ideal. In the MoQ, that ideal is called "Quality". As fundamental value, it is the ideal. Fundamental value does not come out of your or my head, your or my head comes out of fundamental value. an Absolute Ideal. How much more MoQ can you be than this? > In Annotation 102 Pirsig appears to be favouring the idealist stance which > says that objects grow out of ideas. This seems to contradict everything he > has so painstakingly tried to get, and stay away from. > > Well Quality is an idea... but that's not the problem here. Its rather, I'd say it is, as Royce describes, the difference between the world of description and the world of appreciation and which is fundamental. > This 'reduces' the ineffable Quality to JUST an idea You sound like a religious priest of some kind protesting and spluttering, "But, but, but, then according to *your *formulation, God is JUST an analogy." Hey. Mea culpa. Among other things, Quality IS an idea. A pretty big idea, but still, just an idea. Just like me. My self is just an idea, you are just an idea and the entire cosmos is just an idea. Some ideas are better than others. Personally, I think the cosmos is a pretty cool idea. > and all the evidences > gathered, the reductio ad absurdum, the link with arete (as the social > 'expression' of Quality), prior to the emergence of the intellectual level, > his 'battle' with Aristotles as somewhat artificial. The entire power of > ZMM > annihilated! > > Imho, this turn towards idealism as a way of integrating the MoQ with > science significantly weakens the MoQ as it becomes a SOM flavoured soup > with an indirect reference to Quality (as in: 'Oh, by the way, can we use > this idea of quality somewhere or will we leave it for now and wait 'till > it's more convenient?') > > Well I like that analogy. Quality is salt. sprinkle a bit here and there and you're good to go. Immerse yourself in it and you're like the guy carrying the raft after its served its purpose. > It becomes JUST one intellectual PoV amongst many. Yes, the picture in the > gallery metaphor, side by side. BUT they are NOT SUPPOSED TO BE SIDE BY > SIDE, they are SUPPOSED TO BE INTEGRATED! SOM is supposed to be ABSORBED by > the MoQ. > Ok Andre, I make this leap that Quality is fundamental in a way that allows us to ask, Is this idea of Quality any good? It gives us just enough of a platform to address this and from there, good thinking flows naturally. And continues to, in you, in me, in others. All over. I see it, I read it. I love it. SOM can't exactly be "absorbed" by the MoQ, because it presupposes a fundamental reality of subjects and objects. MoQ presupposes a fundamental reality of value which generates the ideas of subjects and objects. So if you make a distinction between "subject object thinking" and "subject object metaphysics" then that solves the "side by side issue" does it not? 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/
