On Mar 5, 2011, at 12:24 PM, Andre Broersen wrote: > > Andre: > ... > As Charlene Seigfried, an eminent James scholar, says: 'What is' > (metaphysics) cannot be designated > apart from how we know it (epistemology). Neither can it be grasped apart > from what we value'. The traditional distinctions between ontology, > epistemology and ethics breaks down so that knowledge and will, facts and > values are fused and this is how the MOQ unites facts and values. > As you say above, you simply reject Pirsig's MOQ thesis and that is why I am > still wondering what you are doing here Ham. I mean this respectfully. > Look carefully at the sentence you wrote above:'And without realization by a > 'sensible agents, it is meaningless'. Think about it in the light of what I > wrote, specifically the word 'realization'. For something to be 'realized' it > must have value, otherwise one will not realize it. No matter how 'sensible' > your agent is. This is what Pirsig's MOQ is made up of.
Andre, Funny, I don't remember a Seigfried quote stating anything at all about the MoQ. But I do remember presenting you with a quote stating that the MoQ is not intended to be within any philosophic tradition, that, I imagine would include' the Jamesian tradition Marsha ___ 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
