Ham >snip> The patterns of Pirsig's "defined SQ" are precisely that -- defined phenomena. Indeed, the only "undefined" entity in existence is the knowing subject and his/her emotional (valuistic) sensibility. To express what Socrates called "the unexamined self" in a comprehensible fashion, we must study the epistemology of philosophers who specialized in defining it. So where is the "frivolity"?
Hi Ham, There is no doubt that you subscribe to SO Metaphysics in which there is a metaphysical distinction between S as in Mind and Will, and O as in Thing and One. Pirsig on the other hand proposes that undefined DQ as well as defined SQ are reality and apply to the inorganic level as well as the organic levels, all levels in evolution, creating the MOQ, the metaphysics embracing evolution. Instead of trying to understand what he has written, or questioning the metaphysics of evolution you post, tongue in cheek (non-existent essence), as though only you know what reality is. Why propose SOM on a site devoted to an explication of MOQ and not expect to be questioned about it unless it is a humorous sidebar? SOM has defenders like Aristotle and Aquinas ( although Aquinas did claim that what he had written was as straw). Joe On 12/19/09 12:15 PM, "Ham Priday" <[email protected]> wrote: > The > patterns of Pirsig's "defined SQ" are precisely that -- defined phenomena. > Indeed, the only "undefined" entity in existence is the knowing subject and > his/her emotional (valuistic) sensibility. To express what Socrates called > "the unexamined self" in a comprehensible fashion, we must study the > epistemology of philosophers who specialized in defining it. So where is > the "frivolity"? 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/
