On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 4:53 PM, X Acto <[email protected]> wrote: > Mark: > > Hi Ron, > The quote you provide by Pirsig may be a necessary premise for MoQ, or > maybe not. The fact that DQ and SQ are inexorably linked is due to > definition. Such linkage is formed through human experience and the > rhetorical devide of the two. However, depending on one's definition, > it is possible to conceive of a DQ without SQ, but not the other way > around. So, I would temper your moral victory here as well. > > Ron: > Hello Mark, > Are not all concepts static? > > To concieve of SQ without DQ is objectivism is'nt it? > > Moral victory? no > > A continuos explanation with an eye toward the expansion of reason, yes.
Hi Ron, You are mistaking my words for what I am pointing at. The act of conceiving is dynamic quality; a concept only exists in the present, while you are thinking of it. It disappears while you are not. One cannot catch a concept. You will find that reason actually shrinks reality, it does not expand. It creates little structures that are dwarfed by that around them, or a nice little path in the forest that misses most of what is out there. Perhaps you want to make as many paths as you can, you will still only touch a fraction of what you knew before you condensed it with reason. Cheers, Mark > > > > 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 > 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
