Hi John, Thanks for your response. I want to keep the focus on epistemology as we proceed. Perhaps the list has discussed it at length. But I want to hear about the EOQ that goes with the MOQ, for they are inseperable.
The problem with your cult, and I do think Prisig has a cult following, is that there are different cults. People "get" different things. Some people "get" error. Or are deceived in their getting, and in what it ultimately brings to pass. I am not a member of the Prisig cult, but I do appreciate how he brings important issues to the for. He is at least discussing the right issues. I just think he reaches the wrong conclusions. I do care about correct and incorrect statements, truth and error, good and evil. My point about the Bible reference concerning a flat earth is that it is erroneous, and even bigoted. As to the stove analogy, this too, is naive, and incorrect. P says in Lila that the mystic, perhaps even the native American, (a little "noble savage" bias here) and perhaps even a child, are privy to some "I know not what" that makes them get off the stove quicker. This shows his limited knowledge of biology as well as of history and philosophy, and the Bible. Perhaps you might write his ignorance in these areas off to his "know not whatness" But I know what, even if he, doesn't. When you sit on a hot stove, or touch a hot object, the signal goes straight to the spinal chord and a message is sent straight to the muscles of your butt or hand. The message causing you to jerk your hand away, or your butt, is sent to the muscles before it even goes to the brain. And this is true for scientists, mystic, noble savage, child and Prisig. It has nothing whatsoever to do with dynamic or static quality, or any difference between them. It only has to do with the Quality of our Creator, and the fact that we are creatures, who are "fearfully and wonderfully made". In addition to epistemology, I want to focus on the connection between theology and philosopy, which is obvious throughout Western, and all culture, and all thought. This is another point that P seems ignorant of. Even his own thought is derived from theology. And I'm a great user of quotes too. But quoting P, as if it were scripture, is not an explanation, or an argument. And I find his quotes notoriously "empty" They are too imprecise, and vague enough to defend by any sophist, by any slight of hand. Maybe this relates to the academic thread What do you think of error, deceit, falsehood, and ignorance? Surely you understand that a lot of what people "get" is simply false. Here are a couple of quotes I'd like to enter into the record for discussion. The point of this first quote, not the proof, is that P claims he has transcended the Romantic-Classic divide. But his definition of Dynamic Quality comes straight from Romanticism. And even if he claims to join them this nothing more than the religious ground motive of the Renaissance. (More on this later.) Every world view, or ground motive, that denies the Creator-creator distinction is based on the alternation of two supposed fundamental principles or forces that are in hopeless dialectical tension, forever oscillating between one extreme or another. These world views, like moq, are inherenetly unstable. This is of course the essence of neoplatonic, and eastern thought. Notice that they are all monistic, with the two principles operating within a monistic frame. And they all deny any true transcendence of creation. Creation, not the Creator is deified in this systems. This will be important when we discuss the connection between theology, philosophy, and the rest of the culture. On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 2:30 AM, John Carl <[email protected]> wrote: > Good Evening Jon, > > On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 8:30 PM, Jon Bennett <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On what are you basing your opinions or value judgments, and how can you > > show them valid, meaningful or true-more than your opinion. > > > > > Good question. I like good questions. I'd like to provide you with a good > answer, but I doubt we have the time tonight. So I'll just do the best I > can in the time provided and answer as honestly as possible. > > > I both know, and don't know what it is upon which I base my value > judgements. I know that it's Quality, but I also know Quality is undefined > and thus cannot pin it down easily. It's more than an emotional feeling, > but at the same time, it's nothing but an emotional feeling. It's a > feeling > ABOUT my intellectual analysis of all the factors I can comprehend and that > feeling is that it's a GOOD analysis. > > If I compare my intellectual analysis with the intellectual analysis of > others, and they agree with me, this good feeling is reinforced and > increased. If their analysis disagrees with me, my emotional feelings are > reduced and I must work to reconcile the difference and where they come > from. If I can find a satisfactory explanation, then I feel better again. > > I can show valid support for logical assertions, but some things are just > too big to fit into the rational framework of logic we've been given and > thus I can't logically prove every single idea I've got, nor can I > demonstrate conclusively the conclusions I've reached to the satisfaction > of > a skeptical other. > > That's just the way it is, I guess. > > Some things you either get, or you don't. A former contributor ( who may > pop up again) who called himself (at least in one instantiation) "Krimel" > called those who get it, part of the "Awgi Cult", as in "All those Who Get > It." > > Always thought that was clever. > > But there was a thread of truth in his intended disparagement. Some things > in life are like that. You either get it, or you don't. > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > Well, to be fair, I did post an exact quote of exactly what I meant, from > Lila. I don't know how much more exemplary a guy can get than a literal > quote about exactly what he's talking about. > > "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." > > > > > > 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. > > > > > What's your point? The speed of getting off a hot stove is related to a > person's reactions and biological fitness, more than one's orientation > toward science or mysticism. The author was making a different point than > "who's fastest" with this example. What's your problem with it? > > > > > > 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. > > > > > He's trying to communicate some important ideas to others with a certain > worldview. I got no problem with any of that. > > > > > Tell me how you determine truth before you go making truth claims about > me, > > or anything else. Why is your view more accurate. > > > > > > Who cares why? Or how? Or if? It's mine, and that's enough for me. > Obviously. > > And I never made any truth claims about you. I only read and judge the > words you type. That's all I'm given, that's all I can do. > > > > > > > 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. > > > > "nothing more than" seems a bit extreme of a judgement. I'm sure in a > sense, we're all just endlessly repeating loops of analogy of meaning begun > before history began. The question of Quality is in the relevance of a > particular teaching to our time and understanding. I and others on this > list find value in Pirsig's formulations to our times, and that's why we're > here. > > If you don't, then why are you? > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > And thanks for yours. Dilettantish tho they be. :-) > > Needless to say, I don't agree with your disparagment of Pirsig's > philosophy. I wonder what you base such judgement upon. His lack of > acceptance in academic circles? It's a ridiculous idea that book sales or > popularity is an obviation of truth or profundity. Surely your > epistemology > goes deeper than that. > > Thanks for subjecting your opinion to "the fray" and keep thinking Jon. > > JC > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > 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
