[MD] (Fwd) Re: John Carl Critiques Pure Experience:INST01

[skutvik at online.no]

Ron, you even dearer fool.

29 July:

I had said:

> > Sure, but senses are STATIC biological quality and very much "a 
> > mechanism". However, the MOQ does not postulate senses as the 
> > sole perceivers of Quality, the universe itself is its first
> > "perceive". 

> Ron:
> Here is where you are most mistaken about Pirsigs MoQ. static
> biological quality is an idea about Dynamic sensual experience just as
> objects are as God, as the universe as anything concieved of or
> defined.

You seem one of the few persons on this site who still care for the 
MOQ. For the rest it's all and sundry thinkers EXCEPT Pirsig. Rorty 
has long circulated with Matt, and after DMB started his PhD career 
we have had a whole academical y gallery. With John, Royce and 
Krueger are included in the menagerie. All saying "the same" only  
deeper, higher, "faster" in an "Annie, get your Gun" style.

To your "objection" which is so embarrassing that it makes me wonder 
if there is no limit. "Ideas" (mind patterns) what the MOQ rejects as its 
opening move. But of course with the elderly Pirsig introducing ideas 
you are justified. As said the MOQ must be the strangest case ever: A 
thinker starting out with a revolutionary system and then abandoning 
its  revolutionary part. to get inside academy.  See what he got, a 
whole lot of of thinkers "saying the same" only better.    

> "The second of James' two main systems of philosophy, which he 
> said was independent of pragmatism, was his radical empiricism. 
> By this he meant that subjects and objects are not the starting 
> points of experience. Subjects and objects are secondary. 
> They are concepts derived from something more fundamental 
> which he described as 'the immediate flux of life which 
> furnishes the material to our later reflection with its 
> conceptual categories.' 

Right, the subject/object "aggregate" is DQ's first static "fallout" (in 
ZAMM) but there's nothing about these being secondary due to their 
being concepts. Jesus, what's not conceptual if we enter THAT as an 
issue? How can DQ be kept out of the conceptual vortex except 
James (and  the elderly Pirsig) saying so ... by use of language. Don't 
be outright stupid! Language must be kept out of any philosophy lest it 
ends in absurdity.

Bodvar.    


















In this basic flux of experience, 
> the distinctions of reflective thought, such as those 
> between consciousness and content, subject and object, 
> mind and matter, have not yet emerged in the forms which 
> we make them. Pure experience cannot be called either 
> physical or psychical: it logically precedes this distinction.
> In his last unfinished work, Some Problems of Philosophy, 
> James had condensed this description to a single sentence: 
> 'There must always be a discrepancy between concepts and 
> reality, because the former are static and discontinuous 
> while the latter is dynamic and flowing.' Here James had 
> chosen exactly the same words Phaedrus had used for the 
> basic subdivision of the Metaphysics of Quality.
> What the Metaphysics of Quality adds to James' pragmatism 
> and his radical empiricism is the idea that the primal 
> reality from which subjects and objects spring is value. 
> By doing so it seems to unite pragmatism and radical 
> empiricism into a single fabric. Value, the pragmatic 
> test of truth, is also the primary empirical experience. 
> The Metaphysics of Quality says pure experience is value. 
> Experience which is not valued is not experienced. 
> The two are the same. This is where value fits. Value 
> is not at the tail-end of a series of superficial 
> scientific deductions that puts it somewhere in a 
> mysterious undetermined location in the cortex of the 
> brain. Value is at the very front of the empirical 
> procession."
> Lila chptr 29
> 
> 
> 
> 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/
> 
>