Ok Jon. I do disagree with you. But I very much appreciate your logic and style. You make good points which deserve more time than I have right now, I'm headed off to visit my daughter's school where she's the lead in a musical.
I'm very excited for her. I will contemplate how to answer you on my long drive. Maybe others might have some insightful criticisms while I'm gone. For now, I just wanna say I think you're gonna fit in with this "cult" just fine :-) JC On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 12:08 PM, Jon Bennett <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > 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
