Too true, Platt, you are ahead of me...
In a message dated 27/1/01 15:25:00, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>Hi Anon:
>
>
>
>You wrote:
>
>
>
>> Platt, I Like the test and I think I pass except for some uncertainty
>about
>
>> what you mean by:
>
>
>
>> "Values are a separate category from subjects or objects"
>
>>
>
>> I guess one Pirsigian sounding answer to this would be: no, not on a
>proper
>
>> understanding of what an object is, ie a static pattern of value. But
>I
>
>> suspect you're ahead of me on this one.
>
>
>
>Here’s the passage from Chap. 5 of Lila where Pirsig says values are
>
>a separate category from subjects and objects:
>
>
>
>“The reason values seem so woolly-headed to empiricists is that
>
>empiricists keep trying to assign them to subjects or objects. You can't
>
>
>do it. You get all mixed up because values don't belong to either group.
>
>
>They are a separate category all their own.
>
>
>
>“What the Metaphysics of Quality would do is take this separate
>
>category. Quality, and show how it contains within itself both subjects
>
>
>and objects. The Metaphysics of Quality would show how things
>
>become enormously more coherent—fabulously more
>
>coherent—when you start with an assumption that Quality is the
>
>primary empirical reality of the world.”
Anon:
Yes, that's right: your are ahead of me, and I was getting ahead of myself by
looking forward to that clarification about objects and subjects being
contained within Value. But of course you're right: you can't be contained
in something if that something isn't a separate category. All I meant was:
not a separate category on the same level, if you see what i mean. There
aren't objects on the one hand, and then values on the other - that's too
much like a fact value gap. But that's not what you meant. Maybe we can
suggest some improvement to the test question to make this clear? Obviously
i don't know what that might be.
>
>
>
>> Maybe another test question would be:
>
>>
>
>> "Is metaphysics the product of some special local and expendable activity
>of
>
>> metaphysicians, or just what we all have to do to understand the world
>around
>
>> us?"
>
>>
>
>> Clumsily worded, but you might have ideas.
>
>
>
>Good question. Maybe the relevant passage can be found in ZAMM. A
>
>shorter and somewhat more provocative question along the same line
>
>would be:
>
>
>
>Do you believe that if you fail to study metaphysics your thoughts will
>be
>
>confined for life?
>
>
>
>Taken from Lila, beginning of Chap. 12:
>
>
>
>“Phaedrus had once called metaphysics "the high country of the
>
>mind"—an analogy to the "high country" of mountain climbing. It takes a
>
>
>lot of effort to get there and more effort when you arrive, but unless
>you
>
>can make the journey you are confined to one valley of thought all your
>
>
>life.”
>
>
>
>One of the reasons I was attrached to Pirsig in the first place was his
>
>
>challenging of the status quo in philosophy. The way "everybody thinks"
>
>
>has no appeal to me, particulary those who subscribe to scientism.To
>
>those unfamiliar with the MOQ, my list of questions must seem
>
>outrageous--the work of a kook. To know there's a kindred spirit such
>
>as yourself and others on this site is indeed encouraging.
>
>
>
>Platt
Anon:
That's what this place is for. We can still work on making the question
snappier though. How about:
"Everything is metaphysical: yes or no?"
One problem with that, I know, concerns 'thing'. Ideas?
Anon
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
