dmb said:
...the attempt to place the MOQ in some realm beyond intellect is just really, 
really dumb. I think a person would have to ignore or misunderstand pragmatism, 
radical empiricism, philosophical mysticism and dozens of direct statements 
from Pirsig in order to entertain such a notion.  ...Its just impossible 
nonsense.

Ron replied:
...No doubt it is by Radical empiricism and Pragmatism that MoQ must operate 
within the cultural context. To gain acceptance it must prove useful. Otherwise 
it remains a mystical allusion, wouldn't you say?

dmb says:
Firstly, I'd say that it is impossible to avoid operating with the cultural 
context. We simply have no choice about that. Pragmatism and radical empiricism 
is mainstream American philosophy so that, yes, it is an excellent way to make 
the MOQ "acceptable". This alignment with James and Dewey is also what makes 
the mysticism work in an "acceptable" way. There is nothing supernatural or 
faith-based about this philosophical mysticism. It is based on direct everyday 
experience. But I fail to see how any of this is related to my complaint about 
the MOQ existing on some "meta-level". The idea that we have to invent a whole 
new level of reality in order to make a place for Pirsig's ideas is nonsense. 
There are good ideas, bad ideas, old ideas and new ideas. Why should this be a 
problem?

Bodvar rejects the idea that anybody except Pirsig has ever rejected SOM but I 
know that this simply isn't true. James and Dewey are the most relevant 
examples. The mystics have been saying so for a couple dozen centuries. Bo also 
rejects mysticism as new age junk, but I know that this is not true either. 
(Although there certainly is such a thing as new age junk.) Bo thinks the MOQ 
is not an intellectual description of reality but rather reality itself, but 
this is explicitly denied by Pirsig many times. This is what I mean when I say 
he's lightyears away from the MOQ. He rejects DQ as the mystical reality, he 
rejects the idea that alternatives to SOM can exists without the MOQ, he 
rejects the definition of the intellectual level and the idea that there are 
only four levels of static quality. I ask you in all seriousness, what the heck 
is left after all that rejection? Nothing except the MOB (the metaphysics of 
Bodvar). No part of it makes any sense to me.

Thanks.






_________________________________________________________________
Make distant family not so distant with Windows Vista® + Windows Live™.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/digitallife/keepintouch.mspx?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_CPC_VideoChat_distantfamily_012008
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/

Reply via email to