Ham Priday stated:
What I see as Pirsig's "rationale" is to re-arrange the attributes of
existence to invent a new perspective. Like the cartographer who, feeling a
bit tipsy one day, looks at a relief map of the world and decides to draw
his own boundaries,
Ant McWatt comments:
Ham,
Thats a good analogy derived from Di Santo & Steeles excellent Guidebook
to ZMM. Nice to see it being used here.
Ham continued:
Pirsig looks at common experience and divides it up in an uncommon way,
making Quality the "moral superpower" and classifying subjective and
objective elements as its subordinate levels.
Ant McWatt comments:
Would Pirsig's ideas be considered uncommon in some East Asian philosophical
traditions? Probably not. Moreover, I think the important consideration
here is to determine whether or not this metaphysical re-organization of
Pirsigs is a better one than SOM based derivatives.
Ham continued:
Having redefined everything to suit his moralistic rationale, he sits back
and says, "See--this is what reality really is. Isn't morality wonderful?"
How stupid of us ignoramuses not to see that we were looking at morality all
the time! That's poetic license for a writer, of course. But PHILOSOPHY??
Ant McWatt comments:
Ham, isnt this redefining everything to suit his moralistic rationale
exactly what youre doing with your obscure ideas concerning Essence?
Anyway, with the Tao Te Ching in mind, I think the distinction between high
quality poetry and high quality philosophy can be a difficult line to draw,
at best.
DMB then asked Ham Priday August 19th:
So let me get this straight. Pirsig is a rationalizing, drunken,
condescending, moralizer?
Ant McWatt comments:
David, you forgot womaniser and crank
DMB continued August 19th:
Is that really what you think or are you just expressing frustration at your
own inability to comprehend the MOQ? Given the overly emotional tone, the
ridiculous straw man you portray and the lack of any coherent thoughts
behind your insults, I'd bet big bucks on the latter.
As I like to say from time to time, reading the works under discussion is
the only requirement for participation here. You obviously have not done
that. Or if you have read the books, your level of comprehension must be
somewhere near 0%. I mean, genuine criticism is perfectly cool, but you
first have to know what it is you're talking about. Otherwise, those who
have read Pirsig are never going to take you seriously. Not even Platt,
that's how bad it is!
After unhelpfully editing out Hams post, Platt then made the irrelevant
comment about DMBs reply to Ham, August 19th:
"Another gratuitous personal insult from the radical left Marxist fringe."
Ant McWatt comments:
I think DMBs non-partisan reply was largely fair comment especially as you
_do_ often take Ham to task on this forum about his misunderstandings
concerning the MOQ. However, regarding your gratuitous personal insult
about DMBs post, that just indicates a relative lack of humour on your part
and how much your mindset continues to be influenced (with little, if any
critical analysis) by neo-con radio talk ideology and their narrow frame of
debate. Quite disturbing to observe really.
.
_________________________________________________________________
Get Pimped! FREE emoticon packs from Windows Live -
http://www.pimpmylive.co.uk
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/
