Paul said to Dan: ... I said "assimilating a mystic experience" by which I mean something like, having temporarily "left the mythos" one should not see the shattering of intellectual patterns as some kind of permanent destruction of "reality." [Paul previously]: I’m suggesting that the MOQ provides the basis of a reconstructed mythos, not a means of escape from it. And to reiterate - this reconstructed mythos does contain subjects and objects but they become taxonomical instead of ontological or epistemological terms, simply referring to types (i.e. levels) of value, as you know.
dmb says: Right. Pirsig says anyone who live outside the mythos is insane. If think you can live outside the mythos, then don't understand what the mythos is, he says. That's another reason why the 180 degree enlightenment does not work. That's why LILA still has to have a theory of truth, despite the rejection of Objective Truth and the rejection of fixed and eternal Truth. It's not very hard to see how 360 degree enlightenment comes back around to everyday life and truth becomes a species of value, a particular kind of evolving static good where DQ is still the generator. "Truth is a static intellectual pattern within a larger entity called Quality." This 180 degree enlightenment, wherein these static patterns are more or less dismissed (as "hypothetical", as illusions, as ghostly in the unreal and imaginary sense) leads to a relativism, a nihilism and an anti-intellectualism. Thanks, ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This taxonomical proposal Paul made, Mr Buchanan, would you be so kind to analyse the wishffullness of this tought? I think its important. Adrie 2013/6/19 david buchanan <[email protected]> > Ron said: > > Seeing how this topic of conversation gets derailed and hijacked > > by the 180 degree point of view, I would like to ask what form or > function > > within the context of mythos reconstruction would serve best in the > radically > > empirical method of falsifying truth theories or to be more precise > finding which > > theories are better than others. Do either of you see dialectic playing > a role in > > this process of inquirey? > > Also I think what has to be kept in mind when people connect > correspondence theory > > with pragmatic truth is that a pragmatist does not seek an ideas > agreement with > > experience so much as a discerning which ideas have the most meaning in > the flow > > of said experience. Those with the most meaning being said to "agree". > > > > I wonder if you also would agree. > > > > I believe if an agreement can be arrived at in this context we can > continue the reconstruction > > with greater clarity, or at the very least advance the discussion on > this topic which does not > > get nearly enough attention. > > > > > dmb says: > > I don't understand these questions. > > > > > > 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 > -- parser 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
