As ever Bo, I agree with a lot of what you say there ... I'll need to digest.
One observation / question for now. You said "... the MOQ is supposed to transcend [the intellectual level], but is prevented ..." "... this quandary is just what the MOQ is supposed to be a relief from ..." Matt sees this as a confining "box" too. I just don't see what "prevents" the development ? Regards Ian On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 10:23 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Matt > > 27 Aug.: > > Steve said in a different thread: >> > Pirsig never expected the MOQ to be the final word on reality. His >> > work is a contribution to an ongoing cultural process of self-creation >> > that cycles from such innovation as his MOQ to criticism to revision to >> > the next innovation. That the MOQ is not immune to this historical >> > process does not diminish Pirsig's genius, it is just to say that Pirsig >> > is a "finite, historically situated being." > > Matt: >> This is one of the interesting dynamics in Pirsig's written work--his >> movement between wanting to say, "Continue the MoQ, the _MoQ_ will >> help us, the _MoQ_ is the best metaphysics around" and wanting to say, >> "Every person needs their own philosophy, because the arc of America >> is our individuality." > >> When you put the two together, that's when you get a weird monster >> like, "The MoQ was created to be transcended. Let's work _on the MoQ_ >> so that we can transcend it." That's when you get the weird dynamic >> from people telling you at one point that you're rejecting the MoQ >> (and that's bad) and the same people telling you at a different point >> that you're mired in other people's philosophy. > > You point to something important and it stems from the intellectual > level (SOM) that the MOQ is supposed to transcend, but is prevented > from). Intellect has an alleged reality "out there" that we are supposed > to deliver theories about, the Aristotelian "metaphysics" no different, > it's an all-encompassing theory, but nevertheless about the alleged > "reality". From this Aristotelian (intellectual) point of view the MOQ is > just a good approach, and it can theoretically be used as a stepping > stone to even better approaches, yet not IT. This way the MOQ is (as > Steve says) not the final word > > But this is the "MOQ an intellectual pattern" assertion that prevents it > from transcending SOM or Intellect which is supposed to be a MOQ > pattern.and thereby a reality of its own with no umbilical chord to the > Aristotelian kind. This Q-reality one either can refuse to enter or one is > caught in it like a black hole. This above - MOQ an intellectual pattern > - makes the MOQ incomplete, I compare it with Socrates whose > obsession was TRUTH but oblivious to the SOM that was to grow from > it. Pirsig DID however make the MOQ but his obsession with Quality > and seeing as independent of the MOQ .... OK everybody knows my > frustration here. > >> Steve, I think, has given us the exact circumlocution for this problem >> in Pirsig. _The MoQ_ has no entity outside of Pirsig: it is _his_ >> philosophy, _his_ writing. For Pirsig, or anyone, to say that the MoQ >> recognizes it's own contingency, or that it will itself be >> transcended, is just to say that _Pirsig_ is a finite, historically >> situated being. It is just to remind us of the fact that the system >> was created by a person responding to his own personal, unique >> problems, which as general as they sometimes may appear to be, may not >> always be our own problems, particularly in the new, yet unforeseeable >> future. > > Most subtle observation Matt, but this quandary is just what the MOQ > is supposed to be a relief from. But as said Pirsig isn't all clear here. It > sounds as if he sees a future when/if the MOQ is rejected still being a > Quality Reality. Almost as silly as his assertion that SOM is/was a > "moq". Admittedly MOQ's intellectual level is the VALUE of the S/O > distinction but in that case it's stripped of the metaphysical "rank". > >> We _have_ to come back to the individual a lot more often than we do >> when reading Pirsig. Pirsig himself would seem to suggest it, and the >> conceptual machinery is important, but it is _not_ the end, it is only >> the _means_, in the bigger picture of life. > > The individual (it's mind) and the "conceptual machinery" (thoughts > conveyed by language) have no place in the MOQ, If we try to include > these we end in the absurd - all is mind, all is language. You seem not > to understand the MOQ. It's about spotting existence's ground and > then the dynamic/static split of this ground. If the individual is "the > measure of all things" a metaphysics of the individual - a MOI - is > overdue and I buy it as I buy a metaphysics of language, its the > Dynamic/Static instead of the Subject (individual)/Object that counts. > > Bodvar > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> Matt >> >> _________________________________________________________________ Get >> back to school stuff for them and cashback for you. >> http://www.bing.com/cashback?form=MSHYCB&publ=WLHMTAG&crea=TEXT_MSHYCB >> _BackToSchool_Cashback_BTSCashback_1x1 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/ > 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/
