[MD] Truth and the Linguistic Turn

[Ron Kulp]

[Platt]
A particular person? Then why does Pirsig write, "Any person of any 
philosophic persuasion who sits on a hot stove will verify without 
any intellectual argument whatsoever that he is in an undeniably 
low-quality situation: that the value of his predicament is 
negative." (Lila, 5) Get it -- ANY PERSON.

[Arlo]

But, I will say, if Pirsig is implying that all humans with similar 
biological constucts respond on the biological level to some 
inorganic stimuli in more or less the same way, I would agree. Human 
bodies biologically respond to "hunger" the same way (increased 
stomach acid, energy deficiencies, etc). But each bounded organism 
has its own unique threshold, its own unique responses, and over time 
may come to "experience" hunger along a range of "low quality" to 
"high quality" as this inorganic experience becomes mediated by 
social and cultural patterns.

When this monk sets himself on fire in intellectual protest, do you 
see any evidence that he perceived his experience to be "low 
quality"? (http://www.toxicjunction.com/get.asp?i=V3627)


Ron:
How co-incidental, I was thinking of that same footage when
Reading your post.
On a side note, I think your statement is accurate, we all respond to
Stimuli in more or less the same way and in that aspect we
Respond to Quality. we still like to think objectively
About this statement. All in all it is this response to Quality that
Makes the MoQ questionable as to it being axiomatic in this way.
The proof lies in the fact that we all respond to Quality.
Not equally as you state, but that instant "no thinking" response
Is something all of us shares. It's this commonality that is the most
certain In our experience.
What do you think this?