[MD] in defence of the "relative"

[Matt Kundert]

Maybe, I'm just not sure what the terms you are using all mean (part of it's your syntax).  I'm not sure what the consequences of taking them on board as part of my own vocabulary would be.  When things remain opaque, I generally try to avoid handing out pluses or minuses.

> Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:38:24 -0800
> From: xacto at rocketmail.com
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] in defence of the "relative"
> 
> Matt,
> 
> 
> What else is measurement less than a limit to the senses? the ratio of them
> the division and what provides meaning less than it's standard?
> Then if you are ok with the terms measurement and ratio let them
> stand for "empirical" , may they stand for "meaning" as well?
> -Ron
> 
>  
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Matt Kundert <pirsigaffliction at hotmail.com>
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Sent: Tue, November 24, 2009 7:46:18 PM
> Subject: Re: [MD] in defence of the "relative"
> 
> 
> Hi Ron,
> 
> Ron said:
> You said a mouthful, just what kind of meaning is Pirsig 
> crafting? It seems as if he's after the kind of Pragmatic 
> correspondance as Aristotle was, that of the primary first 
> principles of the senses and their meanings with the 
> reduction of assumptions. Long and short, a restatement 
> of book Alpha. Which, arguably needed restatement.
> 
> The art of measurement was the focal point, the link 
> from Plato's Protagoras to Aristotles work on first 
> philosophy. As with all measurement the most important 
> art is the craft of points of beginning, of first principles of 
> the measurement of the senses for there is where 
> meaning, if there is any at all, resides as the beginning 
> of explaination.
> 
> Matt:
> I'm not sure how the above explains what "more 
> empirical" means.
> 
> What are "the primary first principles of the senses"?  
> The "senses" give us "principles"?  There's a sense 
> (excuse the pun) in which, yeah, if we are old-school 
> empiricists as Pirsig wants, it _all_ comes from the 
> senses, but your twist seems to suggest a battle-cry of 
> "back to the senses!" as if shit's getting in the way of 
> them.  Traditionally, this shit has be "concepts," or 
> language generally, but then what do I make of 
> "primary principles of the senses"?  It sounds like our 
> senses are supposed to give us _specific_ principles 
> that we've been getting wrong (because of all the shit 
> in the way, namely I suppose these accrued 
> assumptions we need to trim down on).
> 
> I like "measurement," "ratio," but "first principles of 
> the measurement of the senses" remains as opaque 
> as "primary first principles of the senses."
> 
> Matt
>                         
> _________________________________________________________________
> Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection.
> http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/177141665/direct/01/
> 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/
> 
> 
> 
>       
> 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/
 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft's powerful SPAM protection.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/177141664/direct/01/
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/177141664/direct/01/