[MD] [Bulk] Re: Rorty's Relativism

[Andre Broersen]

Bodvar to Marsha:
I agree, only that IMO the Sophists were (what was to the become) the "S"
part of the S/O aggregate. The Truth-ists were clearly what
became "the objectivists" and the there-is-no-truth-except-what-we-
agree-upon would become "the subjectivists". These two as
existence's fundamental fault is what the MOQ substitutes with its
DQ/SQ "fault" (I know you go for the Quality as whole and it is whole in the
sense that both DQ and SQ are Quality.
> I also still agree with you that it would be proper for the
> Dynamic/static (the MoQ) point-of-view to reign on its own level.
Not as a static level but as the meta-level that it actually is supposed to
be.

Andre:
Dear Bodvar and Marsha: there is untold value in suggesting that the
intellectual level is the S/O aggregate. I would almost say that an
appreciation of the MoQ ( and the incredible effort R.M.Pirsig has made) is
not understood properly without the division of the universe into subjects
and objects in the first place.
We all know of the childhood stuff some of us went through being confronted
with a clock. In order to find out how it worked we pulled it to bits and
afterwards re-assembled it (hopefully in working order) so we found out what
made it tick.
Science has worked in the same way: to cut up, to divide, to specialise, to
separate subject from object. What has this shown us? An incredible look at
the richness out of which everything exists and an incredible balance
through which everything is contained.

As I mentioned before somewhere, science is very good at pulling things
apart but terrible at putting things back together (in a cohesive,
sensible, metaphysical way).It seems to me that the dialectical scientific
investigation has its merits but only to pull apart and expose, let the
rhetorical way put it into some perspective with the Good as the fundamental
organising reality...the aesthetic approach.

What I am trying to get at is the picture of your SOL (as it is placed here
on the MD) as a painting in the gallery (SOM is dead and buried). In some
ways I picture your SOL as a 'virtual' hallway through which to enter...
kind of a memory lane... before the MoQ vibrations are introduced.And then I
stumble...hesitate and try to orientate myself: is it possible to have two
visions of the MoQ? The static and the dynamic one. It is not possible to
make the MoQ static (Pirsig for God! and another religion is born) by virtue
of its own dynamics.
Then I see arrows pointing: MoQ ..this way...MoQ that way...and I find a
opening...and above the opening it says: Quality... just follow your
nose...and you step inside and a little postcard is hanging in the air.It is
a picture of a cliff-face and the caption reads:This is fromwhere Castaneda
jumped... .

To tell this stuff I have to trap my thoughts in time and cement them on
virtual paper...making them static representations of the continuous flow of
my thoughts, collapsing the waves of an understanding difficult to pass on
as I have to cut up, divide, separate me from my experience...always
detracting from the experience in the process. What a prick!

Andre