David L., Roger and Squad
I will try to get this through at the eve of September the 30th, and
perhaps beat you all in the "last word" race.
DLT
I see that you have adjusted your view and say that Strawson was
right in calling Pirsig numbingly unclear, and that Popper is your
man now. I have also adjusted my relationship with Pirsig's work
since the eventful day in 1978, but rather the other way; the first
emotional enthusiasm has given way to a realization of confronting
something big that won't stop growing.
Many people have presented their favourite write/thinker as saying
exactly what Pirsig does, but nowhere do I find the "Pirsigian
opening"; the initial recognition of SOM. This is crucial. Many
speaks of the mind/body PROBLEM, but it is as if they take the
problem for granted: THE WAY IT IS. No one has isolated the SOM
before Pirsig. They merely go about how the mind/matter
relationship WORKS: how mind influences matter; creates matter;
how evolution migrates from matter to mind; IS mind, and so on,
without realizing that it is possible to construct a different
metaphysics that don't START with the SOM (except Charles
Peirce perhaps, but he only reached the "trinity" stage of his
Semiosis metaphysics. Much like the Q idea of ZMM)
That everything is in the mind (idealism) is irrefutable from a SOM
point of view. I called it child's play and maintain that. It is the
classical empiricist sense argument. Sight for example. "Out
there" are only light frequencies, colours are subjective. This goes
for all other senses. Ipso facto: The world is in our mind. But this is
not the MOQ and I become quite exasperated when people refer to
this trite demonstration as something sensational. This has lead
various thinkers to various conclusions, but - as said - no one but
Pirsig has - from the above irrefutable demonstration - gone on to
construct a NEW METAPHYSICS with that as a starting point.
There's nothing but mind, let's call it value ......and so on.
This is what never stops to thrill me about Pirsig' MOQ. Rid of the
subject/object impasse a completely fresh vista appears that give
openings for all sorts of enlargements and variations. But when
someone - out of the noblest motives - tries to re-introduce mind in
whatever guise (after it first having been used as the premise!!!!), I
become quite exasperated. It will destroy the MOQ!
Sorry Dave, I didn't mean to use you as a scapegoat, this was
directed to Roger.Other philosophers presented as "saying the
same as Pirsig" don't perturb me half as much, it only shows that -
um - someone hasn't understood it ;-].The MOQ must be as
esoteric as possible, everything that "comes close", but isn't it is
the worst threat.
ROGER
Thanks for a lively discussion. I was a bit drained after the huge
Sunday mail and not up to my best when addressing your famous
"Stand and be counted!" thread. Perhaps I goofed about the
quotation not being from LILA so I have to ask about its location
(p.417 revealed no such). My reference re. what level contains what
was from page 159 in the Bodeley Head edition where it says:
"Mind is contained in the static inorganic patterns. Matter
iscontained in the static inorganic patterns."
This is however where he tries to integrate SOM into MOQ so it
really don't apply to our controversy. However, lower down on that
page he says:
"Mental patterns do not originate out of inorganic nature. They
originate out of society which originates out of biology which
originate out of inorganic nature
Again, not applicable perhaps, so I await your references. Privately
perhaps. This topic will expire before we can have resolved our
dispute about whether this ZMM quote
"The world has no existence whatsoever outside the human
imagination. It's all a ghost, and in the days of the sophists was
recognized as such..... The whole blessed thing is a human
invention. (Ch3 p31)
is valid in a MOQ context
Bo
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
