Hi Marsha and SA [Ron, Bo, DMB mentioned]--
[Marsha writes]:
I should have written 'Marsha detached from strong, social, static
patterns of value, and withdrew into the woods to re-evaluate and live her
personal philosophy.' I might have added, 'There Marsha lived (mostly)
happily ever after'. She paints. She loves. She thinks about
philosophical issues, and discusses them with others.
Is this really anti-philosophy? Why?
I didn't say that reading poetry and living a romantic life is
"anti-philosophy". Nor did I say that analogy and metaphor are not useful
in making philosophical points. You've just demonstrated how words and
phrases can be taken out of context and misconstrued, which is exactly why I
stress the consistent use of defined terms to explain a theory.
Bo and DMB are currently debating over whether "an intellectual model of
reality" must be included in reality itself. They are talking past each
other because "intellect" means something different to each of them. It has
not been properly defined by MoQ's author who dislikes definitions.
Inconsistent use of terms leads to misconception and confusion. This is
particularly troublesome in metaphysics which is fundamental to all
philosophy.
SA said:
See Ham, that's what you fail to understand. Poetry can be thoughtful
and very well reasoned. It can be philosophical, ever more so at times
due to it's ability to have the reader jump to conclusions on their own,
which is the whole point of any good philosophy in my belief, for a
philosophy that encourages anybody or helps anybody think on their
own and to realize life on their own encourages people to realize true
philosophy is lived, not just thought about. A philosophy that comes
closest to living out reality is a philosophy that is closest to reality.
Ham, you seem to want to make reality, instead of finding out what IS
reality.
Of course poetry can be "philosophical"; much of it suggests or expresses
ideas from a philosophical viewpoint. It may even inspire the reader to
"jump to conclusions on their own", and that's the problem. Each of us on
reading the same poem will conjure up a different idea of what the author
meant. What is valuable in creative writing is a detriment to metaphysical
writing for this reason.
Ron said it best:
Supplying meaning is always a tricky business, so to be sure,
you had better make sense. The difficulty with supplying meaning
prescriptively lies in the individuality of each persons experience.
Misunderstood philosophical concepts are a curse on the author's work I
don't want my readers to misunderstand the meaning of concepts like Essence,
is-ness, awareness, value, and transcendence. If they do, they'll either
disregard what I've said, or spend years hashing it out, as with Pirsig's
MoQ. At the same time, I don't want to instruct others on how to live their
lives. As you say, people should be encouraged "to realize true philosophy
is lived, not just thought about." I thoroughly agree, and Essentialism,
when properly understood, gives one the perspective to do that. But it has
to be understood first.
Thanks and 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/
