yeah Dave. I agree completely. Although, I don't have a digital or hardcopy of zamm handy but I seem to recall he sorta gave up on that whole philosophy shtick and just got a practical degree in journalism and settled for drilling bone head english into Montana James (Dean not Will) wanna-bes.
As to how he could make the claim of being an empirical scientist? It's as easy as being a mormon or a jihadist, really. A set of beliefs - an attitude - an orientation. You or I could be ones right now. If we wanted. >See when SOM fails there is no > > alternative, academy won't touch the MOQ with a poker. > > Wonder why this is? > First it could be fatally flawed, they easily see that, and we amateurs are > just too dumb to recognize it. > I'm beginning to get that impression too DT. At first, I thought "wow! MoQ! People who care about Quality must be real quality people, right? But after a while I realized that the kind of people who are attracted to Robert Pirsig are not quality people! Heck no. They're people like me. Low-life outcast ne'er do wells who's hearts swell at the picked-on-renegade getting his reward in the end. People who LACK Quality are the most likely to pick up a book on the subject and fall in love with it. Heck, if you had oodles of it, you wouldn't be bogged down reading the words of the likes of me! You'd have some quality people in your life. And it makes sense metaphysically too! A two-fer. I recall in the weird crooks of my brain a bemused Pirsig interviewed comment about the total yawn from the eastern market. Japanese saying basically, "duh" over the whole Moq. It's like explaining to them how to breathe air. "You should treat values as if they were real?" duh. And then juxtaposed with the western academia's response "how preposterous". heh. Can't win for losin' as my ma likes to say. > If the first is not true then the "What is your substantive field?" issue > is > certainly could be big a contributing factor. When I recently posted the > quote about RMP leaving India and read "empirical scientist" for the first > time I thought, "How can he make that claim?" To that point in his life he > had dropped out of a science program in his freshman year, gone to the > Army, > by his own admission got a BA in philosophy by the generosity of his > teachers, then dropped out of Benares. I know a little bit about philosophy > department in state schools. A large dose of the history of philosophy with > a minor dose in whatever current branch the profs are following. They > generally attract people who like to read and write but don't have a clue > about what they want to do with their lives. A BA in philosophy from a > state > school and a sharp shovel may get you a job digging ditches if you don't > tell about the degree. Really? Are you serious? Because I love digging ditches. It's a weird quirk, I know and one that always marked me as a weirdo in the construction related industries - I love digging ditches. It's aerobic and you don't have to think and people leave you alone with no pesky questions and you can drink if you feel like it. Best damn job in the world. I didn't know philosophy degrees came with such lucrative and desirable career opportunities or I woulda tried harder. Stayed in school longer. Learned what "epistemology" meant at a younger age when it could have done me some good. > He drifts around some more supporting himself based > on his writing skills, brushes up against a little technology, journalism > degree, teaches a little English Comp, and still thinks of himself as an > "empirical scientist". Any wonder there would be skeptics in the scientific > and academic communities. He has no experience in science and is mostly a > self taught philosopher! > > yeah I know what you mean. Interesting isn't it. All the great one's are. Self taught, that is. There's something about philosophy that just doesn't really translate well, teacher to pupil -wise, that is. There's an inner drive to test the fabric of one's reality for oneself, that reliance upon a teacher obstructs. Pirsig said it once "you gotta cross that lonesome valley. You gotta do it by yo'self." Anyway. All the best philosophers are self-taught. Hah! Who more qualified? > He writes an autobiographical novel with some "far out" philosophical > musings, drops out of sight for 15 years, and then does it again. > > All the while whining under his breath, "Why am I so misunderstood.?" > Geeezzz! I wonder why? > > He doesn't say much. That actually helps, I think, to keep it straight what he has said and hasn't and I'm pretty sure he's never said that. I think the people on this list have said it, I've probably sorta implied it, or thought about it and analyzed it which could be kinda whining I guess. I think he's been asked that. I'm pretty sure Baggini addressess it, but I only read that once a while back and I'm not sure. But all in all, I'd offer that his work itself is self-explanatory as to why it is misunderstood. > But Einstein didn't do well in school and was working in the patents office > so backgrounds are not everything. But when Einstein finally jumped in the > intellectual pond he stayed there and swum to the top. Pirsig stuck his toe > in the water and ran for the trees. Big difference on getting accepted. The > discounting or misunderstanding that social institutions guard the gates to > the intellectual level. > > Yup. If only he'd gotten Robert Redford to play him in a movie, he'd be famous. Sigh. Stupid bob. Shoulda kept his mind on business; forgot about morality and worrying over Lila running rampant on the streets of new york. water under the bridge now I spose. > Hey we agree on something. Probably for different reasons though. > When I was working on by "Horns of Dilemma" illustration I kept thinking he > reject left, right, and decided on neither going between the horns. But one > available avenue he never mentioned was a union, both/and. One of the > reasons I think he had to go on to Lila is that if we judge ZaMM > metaphysics > by the Classic/Romantic diagram how much useful difference does it really > make? > > ok, the horns dilemma is subject/object. Both/and, I think, is the middle way. Both subject AND object meet in the middle, in experience. no. Wait a minute. I'm wrong. I'm outta my league here. This is "high road" stuff and I'm strictly a "low road" guy. Ignore all of above and ask an expert opinion. DMB would be perfect and he's around, thank god. > Undefined Quality is elevated over the subject/object split. But Romantic > Quality (pre-intellectual awareness) which I see a including things like, > gut reaction, intuition, etc doesn't really improve our understanding of > that stuff at all. Then if we get down the bottom of the Classic branch we > have subjective qualities and objective qualities that seem to parallel > current definitions: > > Objective: all the characteristic that make a thing what it is > Subjective: degree of excellence or value. > > I'm a bit confused... > Full circle, makes little on the ground operative difference at all. > > ah, well. good. I'm glad I skimmed. i'm willing to call that "no difference" and get to the pub in time for happy hour. happy hour john 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/
