Hello Ant --
> 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, > > That's a good analogy derived from Di Santo & Steele's excellent > "Guidebook > to ZMM". Nice to see it being used here. As far as I know my analogy is original. (I've never even seen the Guidebook.) > 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 > Pirsig's is a better one than SOM based derivatives. I don't deny that Pirsig's concept of the universe has more in common with Eastern mysticism, but I believe he's writing for a Western audience. What, exactly, is an "SOM based derivative"? Is it any or all works of the Western philosophical tradition? Is it logical positivism? And what is there to "reorganize"? Do you feel it is the philosopher's purpose to reorganize commonly held concepts or beliefs? A poet can attribute morality or intelligence to a motorcycle, if he wants to, or call it a 'static pattern' in the evolution of powered vehicles. He may claim this to be a new perspective of physical reality, but it won't change reality or the way human beings perceive it. > 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, isn't this redefining "everything to suit his moralistic rationale" > exactly what you're 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. That's precisely the problem I see. And Ron's Nietzsche essay makes the same equivocation. I would venture to speculate that there is much "low quality" philosophy out there, as well. The whole New Age gambit and astrological horoscopes, for example. You know, of course, that the Millennium is scheduled for the year 2012, based on the Aztec calendar. People will believe anything if it has a catchy phrase attached to it or makes them feel good. Ant, as much as it may appear that my thesis has an "agenda", I really try not to redefine anything, especially for purposes of explaining something away. The detested SO dichotomy is very real to me, as for most people, and I offer an hypothesis to explain it as the actualized mode of a primary source. I would expect Pirsig to regard this as a "high quality idea", inasmuch as he has said the same about the concept that matter precedes ideas (which of course I regard as a "low quality" idea). While I might be accused of "inventing" Essence, it is metaphysically fundamental in a way that quality can never be. But, then, Mr. Pirsig does not wish to be "trapped" by metaphysical definitions. Anyway, I should think that we're all sophisticated enough to distinguish philosophical criticism from gratuitous insults. Thanks for mediating the dispute. Best regards, Ham 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/
