[MD] Pirsig's theory of truth

[Mary]

Hi John and Bo,

[John speaking to Bo]
> the main point
> of
> the whole MoQ - Reality's fundament is Value.
> 
> Which is rendered meaningless by the "Quality = Reality" formulation.
> I
> don't buy that substitution a bit.  Reality is formed by Value, not the
> same
> thing at all.

You're right that it's not the same thing at all.  To say reality is
'formed' by value is to ascribe to the 'blessed trinity' of subject, object,
and value.  This is SOM with Value as whipped topping which is easily
demoted to 'the value is in the eye of the beholder'.  If you go this way,
the whole MoQ devolves into just another S/O Metaphysics.  

Reality does equal Quality.


'...the belief that Quality equals reality came much later and was arrived
at by a more complex process...There was an intermediate period where
Phaedrus thought reality was three-termed, with subject, object and value- a
'blessed trinity' he called it....Later Phaedrus felt that three-termed
realities are rather unwieldy (low quality) and rare in metaphysics, and
tried to collapse them into one....He tried and he saw that it could be
done. As time went on, he saw that not only could it be done, but that it
solved huge philosophic problems that had dogged metaphysics for centuries.
It produced harmony where there had been disharmony. It had high
intellectual quality'. (Annot.118)



Mary

On Behalf Of John Carl
> Sent: Saturday, May 15, 2010 12:21 PM
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] Pirsig's theory of truth
> 
> dang, hit the send button accidentaly before I was done.
> 
> Please let me try again..
> 
> On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 9:59 AM, John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > Sorry for the tardy, Bo.  It's summertime and the livin' is busy...
> >
> >
> 
> > Well I don't see it that way.  First, "biological controls" is a
> misnomer.
> >  Those do occur, but they occur "naturally", as in without
> > intellectual/intelligent manipulations.
> >
> >
> 
> Second, I thought you were one of the chief proponents of the
> importance of
> the distinction between intellect and intelligence.  If this is so, you
> oughta concur that where we make the metaphysical cut is important, eh?
> 
> Third, your understandings of "force" and "control" don't jibe with my
> interpretation of Reality.
> 
> Stone agers don't need police, they've got each other.
> 
> 
> >
> >
> >>
> >> > If you argue the evolutionary development of a human from an ape-
> like
> >> > ancestor, I'll go along with you.  But I'll insist that until that
> >> > ape-like ancestor develops the uniquely human capacity of language
> >> > (not mere communicative grunting, but symbolic manipulation and
> >> > representation) THEN and only then do you have what I term, "a
> human".
> >> > And that symbolic language IS intellect.  All gods and myths arise
> >> > from symbolic representation of reality, and thus all are of 4th
> >> > level, or intellectual thinking.
> >>
> >>
> Bo:
> 
> > I have problems understanding  what you object to: the MOQ or my
> >> interpretation I didn't  think you preferred DMB's yet  about
> "intellect
> >> =symbolic language" is playing straight into his hand.
> >
> >
> 
> 
> John:
> 
> Yeah, I know, and I don't care.  In fact, I'm glad.  It lends a frisson
> of
> intellectual honesty when one is forced to agree with one's
> intellectual
> adversary, don't you think?
> 
> tho, I'm sure he wouldn't see it that way.
> 
> Bo:
> 
> > The Q-
> >> intellectual level occurred when people realized that "language is
> >> symbols in contrast to the what it symbolizes" and moreover "that
> >> thoughts are subjective turning of mental wheels in contrast to the
> real
> >> world out there"  ... this and a million similar subject/object
> contrasts
> >> comprise the VALUE of the intellectual level. .
> >>
> >
> John:
> 
> Don't you think people realized pretty quickly that the word for
> "saber-toothed tiger" was completely different than real tigers?  That
> cave
> drawings were separate from what they represented?  The very creation
> of a
> representation of reality implies awareness of the difference.  So imo,
> you
> have a very perverted view of the intellectual ignorance of early human
> society.
> 
> 
> >
> >> I must make it short, I'm hampered by having to think and have other
> >> chores ... fully tongue in cheek, a great painting career is going
> down
> >> the drain due to this.
> >>
> >> Bodvar
> >>
> >> PS
> >> I saw in this morning's mail that you sided with DMB, I'm not much
> >> worried by that, your (embarrassing) understanding of the  MOQ
> >> automatically places you over there.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> Well I'd hate to see you worry.  Let me reassure you that I value the
> MoQ
> very highly, but I don't see myself as here (MD) to promote and improve
> it,
> I see myself here for the MoQ to improve MY thinking and by
> demonstration
> and sharing of my improvement, influence others to adopt the main point
> of
> the whole MoQ - Reality's fundament is Value.
> 
> Which is rendered meaningless by the "Quality = Reality" formulation.
> I
> don't buy that substitution a bit.  Reality is formed by Value, not the
> same
> thing at all.
> 
> Please roll the following syllogism around in your brain (you can do it
> while painting!) and see if you have any honest way of avoiding my
> point to
> you.
> 
> 
> 
> > > No one can avoid metaphysics.
> >> >
> >> > Metaphysics is intellectual.
> >> >
> >> > Therefore, no one is non-intellectual.
> >> >
> >>
> >
> 
> John
> 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/md/archives.html