Hi dmb,
> Steve said: > ...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, so I am hopeful that others will > have more to say on the issue. > > > dmb says: > Menus don't mention or use anything. Only a living being can mention or use > terms and menus. So I really don't see what you're trying to say. Steve: Personally I would never use a menu that didn't mention any foods. But I'm not really "trying to say" _anything_ if what you are looking for is an argument. I am _asking_ if anyone knows enough about this distinction to help discern whether it applies to what most of us tend to see as an error in Bo's thinking. Apparently you can't help me. dmb: > Anyway, I think it's interesting that James used the same menu/food metaphor > to make the same point, except he called it a "bill of fare" instead of a > "menu". Menus are good so long as they lead you to a fine meal, he said. But > they are not food and we ought not mistake them for food. One real pea is > better food than all the menus in the world, he said. James and Pirsig are > both saying that there is always a discrepancy between concepts (sq) and > reality (DQ) and this menu metaphor is just one more way of illustrating that > distinction. This same distinction also appears every time Pirsig points out > that Quality can't be defined and it is the central distinction at play when > Pirsig says that the METAPHYSICS (concepts) of Quality (reality) is a > contradiction in terms. This same distinction shows up where he reads the > opening lines of the Tao Te Ching as if it were about Quality; the Quality > that can be named is not the real Quality. Steve: Would you say that applying the use-mention distinction to this problem we would have... (1) Metaphysics (concepts) of Quality (reality) is not a contradiction in terms so much as a category error but (2) Metaphysics (study of concepts in general) of "Quality" (particular concept) is coherent? dmb: >This is the central distinction of the MOQ and > , like Bo, you take all this business about being cut off from Quality as a > claim entailing Greek Truth or Objective reality. > > By the way, Steve, you repeatedly asked for my reasoning as to that claim and > I gave it to you a couple of days ago. Are you doing an impersonation of > Lucy, or what? Have you been taking Marsha lessons again? > > Trust me, you say? Steve: I have been waiting for it, but somehow I missed that post. Can you send it to me again? Thanks, 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
