[MD] Words and concepts

[MarshaV]

Ron,

I prefer better 'pragmatic' with a small p.  

"The Metaphysics of Quality is not intended to be within any philosophic tradition, although obviously it was not written in a vacuum. My first awareness that it resembled James' work came from a magazine review long after “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance” was published. The Metaphysics of Quality's central idea that the world is nothing but value is not part of any philosophic tradition that I know of. I have proposed it because it seems to me that when you look into it carefully it makes more sense than all the other things the world is supposed to be composed of. One particular strength lies in its applicability to quantum physics, where substance has been dismissed but nothing except arcane mathematical formulae has really replaced it." 

     (A brief summary of the Metaphysics of Quality, October 2005)  


Marsha  




On Jun 10, 2011, at 9:30 AM, X Acto wrote:

> 
> 
> "Definitions are the FOUNDATION of reason. You can't reason without them." 
> (Emphasis is Pirsig's. ZAMM, page 214.)
> 
> 
> "A metaphysics must be divisible, definable and knowable, or there isn't any 
> metaphysics." (Pirsig in Lila, page 64.)                         
> 
> 
> 
> Ron:
> Note to interested contributer:
> This response is intended to provoke a dialog on the topic of clarity within our 
> understanding
> of what these quotes mean to a philosophic position that supports a Pragmatic 
> point of view.
> It is an attempt to "advance the ball" on what is meant by making the first 
> intellectual distinction
> of experience into static and dynamic Quality. 
> 
> The primary value distinction, in a metaphysics of value, which is an 
> intellectual pattern predicated
> on value distinction (and let us reinforce this statement as to being no 
> misunderstanding about what we
> mean) is experience and explanation of experience. In explanation a distinction 
> may be drawn
> between reflection and non reflection. Decisions/action based on reflection 
> often are more succesful
> than those that are not. And when we then again make the distinction between 
> what is best in terms
> of reflection we begin to explore concepts and words meaning abstractions, the 
> consequences of
> reification..ect.
> 
> I believe starting the dialog from this point of understanding would lead to 
> some interesting discussions
> such as the crafting of meaning from concepts and words and what is best and 
> why.
> 
> Often the rhetorical device is brought into play of not having to make sense in 
> a philosophical, reflective
> conversation because what they mean is outside of languages conceptual ability 
> to entirely, wholy
> and absolutely encapsulate and ultimately define what they mean.
> This is regularly confused with explanations of the ineffiable appearing as 
> cryptic and enigmatic
> to those not "in the know". Their arguement being more based on the consequences 
> of
> esoteria rather than the ouright rejection of meaning they believe thay are 
> defending.
> 
> 
> And the confusion grows from there.
> 
> ===========================================================
> 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


 
___