Platt said to dmb: Another explanation of the relationship between the narrator and Phaedrus was given by Pirsig in an interview with Tim Adams of the Observer in 2006. Pirsig told Adams: "One thing people don't know is that the book was completed and ready to send in when I thought there were too many 'I's in the book. I need another character. So: Phaedrus. He did not appear until the book was written. ...It is horrible in Zen to use 'I'. There is no 'I' in enlightened Zen. And when you see someone using 'I,I,I' in their work you think: Oh, dear . . . As a rule when I write I try to find a way around it.
dmb says:Are you suggesting that this explanation somehow contradicts the one we find in the introduction to the 25th anniversary edition of ZAMM? Are you saying this has an impact on this "much more serious" error, the one that "has obscured the fundamental meaning of the book"? It's interesting that Phaedrus was invented to avoid the over use of a pronoun, but how is that relevant? How does that even count as "another explanation of the relationship between the narrator and Phaedrus"? It certainly doesn't alter the idea that "the narrator is a sell out, a coward, who has abandoned truth for popularity and social acceptance" or that "Phaedrus was dominated by intellectual values". That WAS the point, after all. Like I said to Krimel, the author says this point has an important impact on "the fundamental meaning of the book". Obviously, my concern here is with misinterpreting the book because of this serious error. One example that springs to mind is the narrator's comments about big government programs and the individual. Just a few lines later, Pirsig tells us that Phaedrus went a different way, that he saw the solution in a new spiritual rationality, not cliched ideas about self-reliance. I've pointed this out to you before, but apparently you just don't care what Pirsig says about it or what he really means. It's not just me. You've been accused of distorting the MOQ through reading selectively, to put it politely, more than a few times. I think that charge has a lot of merit. I think you've highjacked the MOQ for your own purposes and use it to support views that are not compatible with the MOQ. As usual, these distortions involve prior commitments political and religious attitudes. Misunderstanding the relationship between the narrator and Phaedrus is just one of the reasons for your apparent confusion about "the fundamental meaning of the book" but it's probably just as important as the other reasons. I wish you'd leave my sister alone or, better yet, learn to appreciate who she really is and treat her right. Despite your haughty, mocking>> tones, you could hardly be more mistaken. C'mon Krimel, if there's one thing >> I know how to do it's locate textual evidence for the assertions I make. And >> your condemnation of the so called "romantics" only has the effect of >> underscoring your own squareness, your own inability to interpret Pirsig's >> art as art. >> >> Krimel said:My point has always been that it is harder for romantics to get >> with the program because their objections to classic thinking are aesthetic. >> You, gav Platt and Marsha are great examples of this. Not only are your >> objections to the classical view purely aesthetic, they make the use of >> reason futile. >> dmb says:Actually, Platt is a good example of what happens when the >> narrator's cliched sentiments are mistaken for the truths of the MOQ. At >> this point I'll remind you that the narrator was a classical thinker and an >> Aristotelian while Phaedrus was the romantic, the Platonic Buddha seeker. As >> you can see from Pirsig's explanation for the intro, the romantic character >> is the intellectual. He's the one who wants to reform rationality itself, to >> expand rationality beyond amoral scientific objectivity. He's not some >> wishy-washy artsy-fartsy dreamer. He's such a hyper-intellectual that he >> wants to perform a philosophical revolution on the whole meaning of truth >> and intellect. Part of that reconstruction process involved an infusion of >> feeling, affect, intuition or whatever you want to call it but to suggest >> that this romantic perspective is "purely aesthetic" or that it makes "the >> use of reason futile" only demonstrates your own fundamental >> misunderstanding of the book. >> >> Krimel said: >> For example you say this, "Human perception is reduced to transduced >> energy. It's all about functioning parts." That is almost what I said and >> almost my actual position but what is missing is critical. If you have been >> paying attention you would notice that I have insisted all along that >> "sensation" is transduction or encoding of physical energy into neural >> impulses. Perception is the synthesis of the parallel process of sensation >> and memory. Awareness and perception are properties that emerge from the >> parallel processes that give rise to them. This is in fact what William >> James claims. >> >> dmb says:Okay, you can consider the distinction between sensation and >> perception to be fully acknowledged. Perception synthesizes the sensations >> and so the latter is where energy transduction takes place. Now, if you >> would, please explain how this is relevant to the charge of reductionism? >> Are you STILL explaining human consciousness in terms of physiological >> processes and the distinction between sensation and perception does not >> alter that fact. Not eve a little bit. Regardless of the details, you are >> explaining a highly complex non-physical phenomenon in terms of biological >> structures and processes. That what reductionism means. It explains higher >> complex things in terms of the lower, simpler things from which they >> emerged. Objecting to this kind of reduction is not a denial that such >> structures and processes exist and the anti-reductionistic does not claim >> they are unworthy of study. It simply says that the higher more complex >> realities are qualitatively different such that they cannot be properly >> explained or understood in reductionist terms. It simply says that intellect >> is NOT a feature of biology. Consciousness is more than what brains do or >> what brains secrete, as you and your friend Searle put it. This is what the >> levels of the MOQ are about, preventing reductionist explanations, >> preventing the flatten of reality into one kind of thing; substance. >> >> Krimel said: >> What exactly do you think "pre-intellectual" means? Is this a state you >> think would be desirable? Would it be desirable to be in this state all the >> time or is this a sort of conscious vacation spot where one drops in for the >> occasional quickie? >> >> >> dmb says: >> I explained what "pre-intellectual" means earlier today in a post to John >> that was also directed at you. As Pirsig says in connection with the hot >> stove example, "the purpose of mystic meditation is not to remove oneself >> from experience but to bring one's self closer to it by eliminating stale, >> confusing, static, intellectual attachments of the past". Do you think that >> would be desirable, to bring yourself closer to experience? In the MOQ >> experience is reality and the idea here is to bring yourself close to that, >> which means your characterization of it as a "conscious vacation" is >> approximately the opposite of what Pirsig is saying. >> >> >> Sorry, but I think you're off. Way, way off. >> >> >> >> _________________________________________________________________ >> Windows Live™ SkyDrive™: Get 25 GB of free online storage. >> http://windowslive.com/online/skydrive?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_SD_25GB_062009 >> 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/ >> > 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/ _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail® has ever-growing storage! Don’t worry about storage limits. http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/Storage?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_Storage_062009 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/
