[MD] Why isn't the hot stove obvious?

[X Acto]

Hello Andre,
What Bo asserts is that MoQ is indeed reality
I think he bases it on the assumption that scientific
objectivism makes, that it's metaphysical assumptions
are reality, based on this alone Bodvar makes his
stand.
Pirsig goes into great detail why this outlook is 
 narrow and limited:
"Unlike subject-object metaphysics the Metaphysics of Quality does not 
insist on a single exclusive truth. If subjects and objects are held 
to be the ultimate reality then we're permitted only one construction 
of things - that which corresponds to the 'objective' world - and all 
other constructions are unreal. But if Quality or excellence is seen 
as the ultimate reality then it becomes possible for more than one set 
of truths to exist. Then one doesn't seek the absolute Truth.' One 
seeks instead the highest quality intellectual explanation of things 
with the knowledge that if the past is any guide to the future this 
explanation must be taken provisionally; as useful until something 
better comes along. One can then examine intellectual realities the 
same way one examines paintings in an art gallery, not with an effort 
to find out which one is the 'real' painting, but simply to enjoy and 
keep those that are of value. There are many sets of intellectual 
reality in existence and we can perceive some to have more quality 
than others, but that we do so is, in part, the result of our 
history and current patterns of values."

The interesting thing is, Bodvar does not understand most of 
what Pirsig says, so he sloughs off the parts he does not get.
The parts that do fit into his understanding he claims possesion
of as the "real" MoQ that no one understands except for him.
A byproduct of him being an "antenna" of superior understanding.
Talk about your "besserweissers"!!

He could claim MoQ as reality based on the statement Pirsig 
makes that experience is reality and the ideas of the MoQ
then are most certainly "reality" but that also opens the door to
any other idea is "reality". Then he'd have to accept the 
"many truths" statement above, which he does not seem
to be willing to do.

-Ron


 


----- Original Message ----
From: Andre Broersen <andrebroersen at gmail.com>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Sat, December 19, 2009 11:00:21 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Why isn't the hot stove obvious?

Bodvar to Andre:
But Pirsig wanted to be more Taoist than Laotse and made the error of
declaring the MOQ part of  "what can be named". But for Chrissake
the MOQ merely says that DQ is dynamic, and saying this can't be any
"naming". One may be too smart ("A bridge too far").

Andre:
'Pirsig...declaring the MoQ part of 'what can be named' an error?

Pirsig himself says that it is important to keep all concepts out of
DQ. Even suggesting that Quality is 'dynamic' is a transgression.
Dynamic Quality is not this/not that.

Bodvar:
I don't know what have gone into you all not seeing
the futility of declaring language to be the "desecrator" of the holy
unity. But this is the William James pollution of the MOQ (that the
divide is Dynamic/Conceptual) that Pirsig adapted in his desperate
longing for an academical "friend".

Andre:
Maybe you need to explain this once more Bodvar but to suggest a
static part 'belonging' to Quality (i.e. SQ) is already a
transgression of the ineffable.
Not one moment is an exact same copy of the 'previous' moment.
It is only convenient to pretend it is. In other words, it is a high
quality intellectual PoV.
imho

Andre, the stubborn Dutchie living and working in the Middle Land.
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/