Hi Steve, Matt and others. I wasn't kidding. Neither dicking.
My example was meant to show how quality can be defined as an event by using one of the basic elements of language. The concept of it.
What IT is. It as an event is defining itself as an event of two letters, in the right order, has a value when its used. The it event is realized. As quality is an event (a process with time included) it shouldn't be about reality but realization. A verb and not a noun.
I can't see anywhere in RMP's writing that Quality should be observed by something that is NOT an event, or activity. It takes an event to observe and define an event.
Jan-Anders [email protected] wrote 2010-12-15 19.50:
Hi All, dmb: In this case we have one pragmatist who says [1, Pirsig] the fundamental nature of reality is outside of language and another who says [2, Rorty] it's language all the way down. Steve: Whether they are both right, or both wrong, or one right and one wrong is a matter of what they mean by such statements. If we view them as positive metaphysical then they amount to saying: [1] Language is the sort of thing that has an essential nature that language seeks to capture but always fails to capture. [2] Everything is language. Neither philosopher wants to say either of these things. But if that was what they meant they would both be wrong. If we view them both as denials of Platonism and correspondence theory of truth. we have this point of agreement: [A] Reality isn't composed in such a way as to enable exhaustively chopping up reality in sentence-sized chunks. They are both right. Rorty and psychological nominalism in general also makes (Matt, correct me if I am wrong) the following stronger claim: [B] Language use is a process of relating things to other things, but language never bottoms out. The things that are being related by language are bits of language to other bits of language. Rather than knowledge being a matter of finding the proper correspondences between sentences and non-language, such linguistic relations go all the way down. The test of truth for a knowledge claim is then not correspondence with non-linguistic reality but the consequences of believing or disbelieving a claim. Rorty and Pirsig agree on [A]. Does Pirsig agree with Rorty on [B]? The only way Pirsig could be right and Rorty wrong is if Pirsig denies [B]. Best, Steve
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
