[MD] The Quality/MOQ dichotomy.

[Ham Priday]

Platt --


I know you would rather discuss international politics, but I can't let this 
go unchallenged.

> Until the subject (a pattern of values) symbolizes (with an intellectual
> pattern of values) his realization (Dynamic Quality), the subject remains
> mute. Thus, I can only speculate on what the subject "realizes." ...

You can only speculate on what your cat or another human being realizes. 
But there can be no doubt as to what you as your own subject realizes.  Are 
we at least in agreement on this?  If not, how do you define "realization"?

> [Pirsig] believes in what you call subjects, but he calls them patterns of 
> value
> consisting of inorganic, biological, social and intellectual patterns of
> value. Remember: for Pirsig, the world is a moral order. Like he suggests,
> when you see subjects and objects as interacting patterns of value, you 
> get
> a whole different view of reality than seen through subject/object
> spectacles.

Assuming your analysis of the MoQ's "subject" is correct, you have "patterns 
of value" chasing after value.  Whether the value being sought is "static" 
or "dynamic", something is wrong with this circular epistemology.  Simply 
speaking, a value (or pattern of values) has no need for value, hence no 
need (e.g,, desire or motivation) to interact with what it already is.  This 
throws Michael's concept of the subject "seeking transcendence" flat on its 
face.

You haven't allowed for sensibility in this analysis.  I define the subject 
as value-sensibility, the basis of proprietary awareness and the driving 
force of human action.  I can't see that either of these attributes is 
accounted for in Pirsig's epistemology.  Perhaps you could explain how man 
as a collection of value patterns is subjectively motivated toward a greater 
("dynamic?") value.  Or do you, like Bo, regard Intellect (the power of 
knowing or realizing) as something beyond subjectivity?

Thanks, Platt.

Kindest regards,
Ham

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  
- - - - - - - - -

>> And, speaking of concepts, doesn't it concern you that words pertaining 
>> to
>> intellection -- such as awareness, cognition, consciousness,
>> conceptualization, and realization -- are virtually absent in Pirsig's
>> writings?  Do you suppose this is because he doesn't believe in subjects,
>> or
>> because he doesn't want US to?
>

>
>> > Bo has defined intellect properly as the value of the subject/object
>> > division, a value you rigorously support. But from an MOQ perspective,
>> > what is more fundamental than the S/O division is the value.
>>
>> True.  Which is why I'm still talking to Bo, despite our "intellectual"
>> differences.
>
> I would guess your value differences are wider than your intellectual
> differences.
>
> [Platt]
>> > Anyway, intellect has brought us such marvels as the Reid/Pelosi
>> stimulus
>> > (stealfromus) bill, proving Ben Franklin's observation: "So convenient
>> it
>> > is to be a rational creature, since it enables us to find or make a
>> reason
>> > for everything one has a mind to do."
>
> [Ham]
>> We are in complete agreement there.  We don't need "conspiracy theories"
>> when the strategy is so factually evident.  After promising 
>> "transparency"
>> and "non-partisan politics" our new President has rammed through Congress
>> the largest spending bill in U.S. history, concealing details from the
>> public and refusing to consider alternative measures.  Less than a third
>> of
>> the $720 billion will provide tax credits to private businesses, the
>> legitimate source of jobs and investment, while the rest is a New Deal
>> spending package designed to benefit illegal immigrants and the
>> unemployable
>> that will do nothing to stimulate the economy.
>>
>> As Rahm Emmanuel said last November, "Never let a crisis go to waste."
>> One
>> would have hoped that the Anointed One, who has been heralded as "the 
>> most
>> intelligent president ever to assume office", would have the sense to
>> realize that you can't cure a deficit crisis by spending money you don't
>> have.  Among future steps, already underway, will be pushing for the
>> "Fairness Doctrine" and making U.S. Census redistricting subject to White
>> House approval, instead of the Commerce Dept., thereby ensuring a 
>> Democrat
>> victory in the next election.  You and I know what "change" our new 
>> leader
>> has in mind for the Obamanation.  What troubles me is that no one seems 
>> to
>> care.
>
> Not only does no one seem to care about the flim-flams being perpetrated 
> by
> Obama and his acolytes, but no one seems to care about an even more
> frightening development -- the criminalization of free speech in Belgium,
> supported by English who appear to have reverted to Chamberlain-style
> appeasement. No need to go into all the details. Suffice it to point out
> that Geert Wilders, a Dutch member of parliament, will be brought to trial
> for making remarks about Islam that a court said would "effect the dignity
> of Muslims." Wilders was later invited to England where he was detained 
> and
> then deported back to Holland on the grounds that he would "threaten
> community harmony."
>
> The Wilders case shows that what began in academe, that supposed citadel
> of intellectual freedom with its politically correct speech codes, has now
> predictably and inevitably deteriorated to totalitarian censorship. The 
> way
> the present generation has been indoctrinated, you and I know that what
> used to occasion outrage at such an assault on basic freedom will never
> happen.
>
> Best regards,
> Platt
>
> 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/