Dear Bo,
Dear John > (for us oldies a "dear john letter" was one of breaking an engagement > (jilting) . Hope Marsha can point me to a site where I can hear that old > "schlâger" and/or the text perhaps) > Yeah, I've never gotten a "dear John" letter, but I've heard about 'em and been handed the news directly a few times. > OK, Pirsig amateur quality can be used against him, but I'd say that it > is his force, he was the uneducated child who had nothing to lose by > pointing out SOM's "emperor's clothes". > > I don't think Pirsig's amateur quality can be used against him, I think it buffers and supports him. He didn't go into philosophy with a bunch of preconceived, pre-digested ideas but had to work it out for himself from scratch, practically. Which makes it easier for us fellow amateurs to follow his reasoning and (assumedly) reach a consensual agreement following his logic. And I agree, Like the old Kristofferson song says, "freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose." > > There's no lack of "attacks on SOM" in the sense of pointing to the > paradoxical consequenses (platypis) of the Mind/Matter dualism (the > modern, version of SOM) but is usually directed from one or the other > end of M/M's "seesaw". Well I pointed out one certain philosopher's dealing with both SOM and Mysticism thoroughly and then dismissing them and moving on. But I see you are not convinced and I'm not sure there is anyway to convince you and I'm not convinced myself that it is a good idea for me to try and do so... So I guess we'll just give it a rest for now and move on to a more relevant aspect of the dialogue. In the end, what difference does it make how many people saw the overthrow of SOM? What matters in our dialogue is that we both agree it was important and it happened. > The materialist end is down right now, but > once titles like "the site of consciousness is found" or "... of soul" was > hot stuff. (Danah Zohar f.ex.) The idealist end is up right now and ditto > titles like "consciousness plays a role in the outcome of Quantum > Experiments" or other "New Physics" are now the fashion. But both are > within SOM's jurisdiction, none leads out of its territory. You seem to have a problem with reason. It seems like you don't believe its reasonable for reason to realize its own limitations. And yet, it was using the tools of reason that Phaedrus overthrew the church of reason, in the book. And you can follow the steps, one by one, and you say you agree with the Pirsig in ZAMM. So you confuse me. > > ;-) You really know how to say things, but still don't understand . Who > are the anti-SOM trailblazers? See what happened to the MOQ when > Pirsig embraced William James? It derailed and for years I have been > working on bringing it back on track. James' "attack" in the form of a > dynamic something creating subjects and objects by "conceptualizing" > them is good old SOM in the guise of (our) consciousness creating > the world and our academics - DMB and McWatt - embrace this as > revelation and hopes it will open the academic doors. It may but is its > MOQ's sure death. > Well, I don't know about that. Even if philosophy is true (whatever that means) that doesn't mean it's going to live. Life requires social acceptance, teaching children who teach their children, etc. Success = popularity. Ignore-ance = death, for all intellectual patterns. For the MoQ to survive, the MoQ has to gain popularity. > But as not to derail our own conversation, you may point to some > philosophes who have truly hung the bell on the SOM "cat" in the > sense of pointing to a new metaphysics arrangement in which SOM is > a subset, because THAT must be done DMB pointed to Hegel and I > am searching for a letter from Pirsig where he points to the likeness > with Hegel but also to one aspect that spells total difference. I know > that my hinting to Pirsig letters - but not finding them - sounds > suspicious, but I swear. > Nah, don't look in Hegel. You could review the coppleston annotations, which shows his (Pirsig's) recognition of philosophical agreement with the British Idealists, Bradley. Or the unmentionable one that I keep mentioning. Take half an hour out of your day and do some reading here<http://www.giffordlectures.org/Browse.asp?PubID=TPWATI&Volume=0&Issue=0&ArticleID=3>, and see it that doesn't answer your demands. I'll be glad to take questions once you've covered the material, as the chairman says. :-) 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/
