Ron had stated to Ant:
That is why I think we must be careful with what we mean when we say that
"Quality is one".
Ant McWatt comments:
Ron, I guess it depends on the audience. For example, I think if Pirsig had
used the Tetralemma in LILA, it would have lost some of the ZMM audience
interested in a more general chautauqua. However, now that the ideas in LILA
have had 21 years to become latched; then I see no reason - philosophically -
for why more sophisticated understandings of how the MOQ can be understood as a
monism (for example, using the Tetralemma) can be introduced.
Ron:
I'm not sure exactly how the tetralemma is going to help clarify anything when
the Quality that can be
discussed and understood is not the Quality pointed to. Quality is then united
as something inwhich
nothing can be said about. Therefore "one" doesent begin to cover it , it's an
abstraction a generality.
Ron continued:
We can Pragmatically avoid a lot of false philosophical problems if we avoid
associating Quality with unity. Willie James had some good reasons why not to
also.
Ant McWatt asks:
I'd be interested in hearing some of these reasons.
Willam James:
" the difference is that the empiricists are less dazzled. Unity doesent blind
them to everything else, doesent
quentch ther curiousity for special facts whereas there is a kind of
rationalist who is sure to interpret abstract
unity mystically and to forget everything else, to treat it as a principle; to
admire and worship it; and thereapon
to come to a full stop intellectually." William James Pragmatism
"Pragmatism, pending the final empirical ascertainment of just what the balance
of union and disunion among
things may be, must obviously range herself upon the pluralistic side."William
James Pragmatism
."But if you follow the pragmatic method , you cannot look on
any such word as closing your quest. you must bring out of
each word it's practicle cash value, set it at work within the stream
of your experience. It appears as less of a solution, then, than as a
program for more work and more particularly as an indication of the
ways in which existing realities may be changed." William James Pragmatism
Ron:
The majority of "Pragmatism" is a response to Monism, Monism he states
is useful in that it affords us a moral holiday. If MoQ is part and parcel of
the tradition of Pragmatism, stating that it is a monism departs from this
tradition.
William James on Pragmatic method:
"The attitude of looking away from first things and principles,"catagories",
supposed
neccessities; and look towards last things, fruits,consequences,facts."
Ron concludes:
For MoQ to be a Monism and yet follow Pragmatic tradition would require
such a sophisticated explanation and a large re-working of both terms.
Don't you think? for they are just about contrary in meaning.
It would be better to classify, if we must classify, MoQ as a pluralism that
asserts Value as it's first abstract principle of explanation. Then it sits
comfortably without contradiction in meaning.
Cheers!
..
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
