Hello Arlo,
I'd like to preface again by establishing that I am using this occasion to
sharpen
rhetorical skills and hopefully wring a little clarity out of what we mean when
contributers
say that what makes Pragmatic truths verifyable in experience is their success
and
satisfaction in the stream of experience.
Words like "environment" and "nature" are thus rendered as conceptual
catagories.
Experience is all we can say there "is" with any kind of certainty. But we go a
step further
and use words like "the good" "betterness and "Quality" in our explanations.
In the hopes of rescueing an important philosophical discussion on this subject
and better clarify for everyone what we mean by using the term "SOM",
we can spare alot of posts of posturing and frustration that never really
address the content. THAT being said.......lets address the content..
[Ron]
Eh, what about the four levels explanation. THAT certainly addresses
preconceptual patterns of value.
[Arlo]
The four levels of Pirsig's MOQ are POST-experiential.
{Ron relies}
I think that needs to be highlighted more. Often this gets neglected. But they
do concern pre-experiential
experience.
[Ron]
Now to say we sink back to SOM when we begin to theorize beyond the now of
experience...
[Arlo]
I'm beginning to think that until people can show they understand the term
"SOM", posts where they use this term should be flagged.
"SOM" refers to pre-experiential existence; whether you call that which
precedes experience 'objects' or 'patterns' does not matter, it is the
PRE-EXPERIENTIAL assumption that defines SOM, not the use of the word 'object'.
(Ron replies)
I find hard to explain the meaning of the term without implying a
pre-experiential "be-ing".
[Arlo]
We "sink back to SOM" when we talk about pre-experiential existence. THAT is
SOM. THAT is why the MOQ is different, radically different, when it proposes
that ALL static quality ("patterns") are POST-experiential.
In "SOM", 'we' experience 'static quality'. In the MOQ, 'static quality'
emerges FROM experience. These are two radically different views, and THIS is
where the "Copernican" revolution of the MOQ is found.
You can argue that a better metaphysics must include pre-experiential
'things/patterns/objects/existence', but we really need to be clear that this
IS "SOM", and that simply not using 'subjects' and 'objects' doesn't change
that.
[Ron}
And I think that is what Pirsig does when he employs the 4 levels explanation
and evolution. Both concern the usefulness
of pre-expeirential concepts. His terms change but hes talkin SOM in the
inorganic and biological levels which is what
often causes quite a bit of confusion around here, the use of Pirsig quotes
becomes contradictory and a whole lot
of key strokes are spilled over a basic clarification of meaning.
thnx
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
