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

[John Carl]

Bravo Andre!

Well said.

You prick.



On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Andre Broersen <andrebroersen at gmail.com>wrote:

> 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
> 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>