Marsha said:
Once this is understood and accepted, MoQ denotes Reality equals Quality
(Dynamic Quallity/static quality (inorganic, biological, social &
intellectual(*)))
Arlo replied:
..."Quality" precedes "definition and analysis". "The Metaphysics of Quality"
does not, it is the result of Pirsig's "definition and analysis".
Pirsig says:
"Quality is indivisible, undefinable and unknowable in the sense that there is
a knower and a known [subject and object], but a metaphysics can be none of
these things. A metaphysics must be divisible, definable and knowable, or there
isn't any metaphysics. Since metaphysics is essentially a kind of dialectical
definition, this means that a 'Metaphysics of Quality' is essentially a
contradiction in terms, a logical absurdity." Lila, chapter 5
24 chapters later, Pirsig quotes James on the same point:
"There must always be a discrepancy between concepts and reality [between
static patterns and dynamic quality], because the former are static and
discontinuous while the latter is dynamic and flowing." Lila, chapter 29
dmb says:
In case the point is not clear, I'm saying that Arlo's view is well supported
by the evidence and Marsha's view is contradicted by that evidence.
A reasonable person respects the facts, no?
To say the MOQ means something else "for me" is just some kind of solipsism or
idiocy, no? I mean that in the sense that Crawford explained. Isn't that the
kind of "reasoning" we ought to condemn? It's not being too picky, is it, to
expect that much from amateur philosophers?
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/md/archives.html
