On what are you basing your opinions or value judgments, and how can you show them valid, meaningful or true-more than your opinion.
Of course I don't mind if you disagree, I welcome it. But show me more than opinion. I haven't posted enough for you to know what I think. Let's use examples to make our case. To be honest, its Lila, I haven't absorbed, or even finished. But I've read some sheer nonsense in both books. Case in point, a mystic dynamic quality person gets off a hot stove faster than a scientifically inclined static based person. I am a bit of a dilettante, but I've studied the issues Pirsig deals with long and hard. Besides, a child could pick out the foolishness in some of his ideas. He makes sweeping generalizations about all religions, with extreme bias as to their value. He even states the Bible promotes a flat earth view. And often conflates Biblical world view with that of modern science in one fell swoop. Tell me how you determine truth before you go making truth claims about me, or anything else. Why is your view more accurate. Pirsigs Dyn and Static quality doesn't seem a lot different from Taoism, or the Greek matter-form, dichotomy represented by Apollo and Dionysus. It's pure Eastern thought that's been around forever, that's why easterners already get what his books are saying. And of course its Neoplatonic as there was great similarity between the Greek and Eastern mind. So no wonder even Pirsig says its close to Plotinus. And the dynamic q and the supposed pre-rational reasoning of mysticism is nothing more than what emerged in Romanticism-again with its Greek roots. I do give Prisig a lot of credit for his writing and introducing such complex and important ideas. And he does raise good questions and have some good insights. But he is a dilettante, or rank amateur, when it comes to philosophy. And its a ridiculous idea that book sales, or popularity is some measure of truth or profundity. Surely your epistemology goes deeper than that. Thanks for your thoughts, Jon On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 4:25 PM, John Carl <[email protected]> wrote: > Greetings Jon, > > I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with you on a few points. Hope you don't > mind. > > On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 8:52 AM, Jon Bennett <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I think Prisig is a much better writer than philosopher. > > > Sorry, but this can't be true. If a guy writes a philosophically oriented > book and it's not good as philosophy, then it's not that good as a book. > > But I'm not sure what you think a good philosopher is, either. > > > > > > And Zamm was much > > better written than Lila, or the parts I've read. > > > I think that Lila was perfect, but only as a response to a felt-need raised > in the reading and apprehension of ZAMM. Usually when people don't like > the > second book, it indicates to me that they never really absorbed the > first. > > A common weakness in our attention deficient age, so don't feel insulted. > But the "parts I've read" comment does sorta expose you as a dilettante. > > sorry. > > > > > I do think he raises some > > very interesting and timely and relevant points about philosophy, or > times, > > the history of ideas. > > > > But I find most of his solutions in the moq simple, naive and sometimes > > just > > plain flaky. > > > > This is all too nebulous to comment upon. Tell me specifically what you > find naive or flakey and perhaps I can find something intelligent to > contribute to your understanding. For me, this from my last page of Lila > says it all and if you think this is naive and/or flakey... > > well you and me ain't gonna get along. > > > "Now Phardrus remembered when he had gone to the reservation after > Dusenberry's death and told them he was a friend of Dusenberry's they had > answered, "Oh, yes, Dusenberry. He was a *good* man. > > They always put their emphasis on the *good*, just as John had with the > dog. > > When the Indians used good, they meant it as the center of existence and > that Dusenberry, in his nature, was an embodiment or incarnation of this > center of life. > > Maybe when Phaedrus got this metaphysics all put together people would see > that the value-centered reality it described wasn't just a wild thesis off > into some new direction but was a connecting link to the center of > themselves." > 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/md/archives.html > 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/md/archives.html
