Hi Andre
18 Dec.:
Bodvar to Bruce:
n
> > But - alas - Pirsig obviously thinks the MOQ some distorting of
> > Quality..
Andre:
> Hi Bodvar and Bruce, hope you do not mind me picking up on this. I do
> not understand your objection Bodvar; Pirsig has made it very clear
> that the MoQ is an idea. A static intellectual PoV.
Don't you think I know ;-(
> The 'distortion' is taking place at the level of the first line of the
> Tao Te Ching: 'The Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao.To
> paraphrase: the Quality that can be named is not the eternal Quality.
If Laotse had sat himself down to write a Metaphysics of Tao its
distinction would have been between "Eternal Tao" (Dynamic) and
"that which can be named" (Static Tao) and he would surely have
understood that there can't be a Tao more eternal than Eternal Tao.
But Pirsig wanted to be more Taoist than Laotse and made the error of
declaring the MOQ part of "what can be named". But for Chrissake
the MOQ merely says that DQ is dynamic, and saying this can't be any
"naming". One may be too smart ("A bridge too far").
> Are you not confusing the dynamic/Buddhist view with the
> 'conventional' (static) view? (See Nagarjuna's The Middle Way).
If Buddhism has a dynamic and a static Buddha, one can't easily
escape saying so. I don't know what have gone into you all not seeing
the futility of declaring language to be the "desecrator" of the holy
unity. But this is the William James pollution of the MOQ (that the
divide is Dynamic/Conceptual) that Pirsig adapted in his desperate
longing for an academical "friend".
Bodvar
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/
