[MD] humpty dumpty

[118]

Hi Marsha,
I understand.  Must be difficult sometimes.  But I don't blame you, it is a simple matter of how one uses this forum.  Feel free to ask me any question, I will do my ignorant best to answer you.  I know next to nothing.

When one realizes that "analogy all the way down" has no real placement, one becomes aware of what it imparts.  It reveals the exact opposite of such a statement.  Give it a think, I am not attacking you.


Mark

On Aug 4, 2012, at 4:07 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:

> 
> Hi Mark,
> 
> 
> On Aug 4, 2012, at 2:59 PM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 6:20 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>> 
>>>>> Mark asked:
>>>>> Why does Pirsig think it is important to bring in a social level when creating a metaphysics based on Quality? Is there an alternative approach that would deliver the same message about Quality?
>>>>> 
>>>>> dmb says:
>>>>> The MOQ's social level is one of four different kinds of STATIC quality and all four levels are to be distinguished from Quality or Dynamic Quality. There are important reasons for distinguishing the social level from the other levels of static quality, but DQ is not relevant to those reasons. For this reason, your question doesn't make any sense.
>> 
>> Mark:
>> I hope my question makes sense now to dmb, now that I have followed it
>> up with clarification.  I am still waiting for a response, unless dmb
>> does not want to philosophize.  I can accept that.
>> 
>>> Marsha
>>> 
>>> 
>>> p.s.  There is lots more to present about Schopenhauer's ideas about perceptions and concepts.   (All very interesting, even if only analogy...) 
>> 
>> Marsha, I do not understand what you are saying here, since you left
>> it with "..."
> 
> Sorry, it would have made more sense if I had written the last sentence in parentheses, as an aside - (All very interesting, even if only analogy...).  
> 
> I will not continue with your questions because I do not want to confuse and conflate any of Schopenhauer's philosophic definitions with your questioning my statement concerning 'analogy'.  
> 
> I will say only that I meant that it is ALL 'analogy all the way down' and out, if you like.  Yes, it is probably an overused aphorism, but I still think it has value.
> 
> 
> Marsha 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> I will explain my confusion starting with a commonplace definition
>> (from the top of a google search "definition of analogy"):
>> 
>> a·nal·o·gy/əˈnaləjē/
>> Noun:    
>> 1. A comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their
>> structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification.
>> 2. A correspondence or partial similarity.
>> 
>> Mark once again:
>> What is Schopenhauer presenting an analogy OF?  Analogies are
>> representations of something.  Are you saying that what he presents is
>> an analogy of Quality?  And don't tell me that Quality itself is an
>> analogy, that is not what I am asking.  From your readings of
>> Schopenhauer, what is the analogy?  What is he trying to clarify?
>> What are his writings a correspondence to?  How do these relate to
>> MoQ?  Please don't hide like dmb does.  This could be a good
>> discussion.  I might learn something.
>> 
>> "Analogies all the way down" is a silly paradox, but it can lead to
>> awareness of Quality.  Such a statement is not an answer, but a
>> suggestion.  What does it suggest to you?
>> 
>> To say something is analogy requires a completion of such a statement.
>> Otherwise it is similar to a statement like...
>> 
>> Hope you understand my confusion.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Mark
>> 
> 
> 
> 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