Steve, The fact that you reference Bo for an arguement, sigh, you really lost me. that guy is about as clueless as they come..sorry. Really Steve? ..
From: Steven Peterson <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 2:35 PM Subject: [MD] The use-mention distinction Hi Bo Steve > I don't know what is meant by "the other side of air," so I must still > have glasses on. Do you have your glasses off, Mark? If so, how did you > achieve it? What does it mean to you to have your glasses off? Are there > benefits to taking off glasses beyond finding "the other side of air" to > be a sensical notion? Bo said (off list and without getting into that SOL business): This glass business is related to the "no-one can avoid metaphysics" issue which means that there is no immediate DQ experience. All existence are the levels, inorganic patterns inorganic value ...etc. until mankind who are all levels (at least the 3 first). All this about closer of farther from DQ resembles SOM's subject that experiences - in this case - DQ. Pirsig went off track already in the opening (of LILA) where he started with the various objections to (do) metaphysics and after brushing them all aside and concluding with the "no-one can avoid metaphysics" he - in spite of this - went on to treat Quality as some mystic entity outside metaphysics (the food/menu metaphor) He did not not notice that this was playing straight into SOM's hand - the original Greek one - of the objective reality (Truth) versus all the subjective "menus". There is no Quality that the MOQ is a menu of, Quality is MOQ's DQ/SQ configuration where the first element is existence's dynamic aspect and the second is its static. IMO!! Steve: I always thought there was a very basic (as in "at the root") problem with Bo's interpretations that led to all the trouble. One distinction which may clear up a lot of confusion in discussions here in general and with Bo's objections in particular would be to be careful about use of a term as opposed to the mention of a term. Here I think we ought to say that a menu mentions food, but it doesn't use food. Only a living being can do that. I think it may help to see what Pirsig is doing as making a mention-use distinction to avoid any metaphysics-reality confusion. I haven't thought much about it as of yet, (I just saw a video of a talk by Dennett where he discussed the importance of clarity on that point) so I am hopeful that others will have more to say on the issue. 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 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
