Hi Horse, Ah ha. Reading your Pirsig quote below I now understand the fervent opposition to my and Marsha's and Bo's and Platt's assertion that the Intellectual Level is SOM. I get it. As a personal aside, I have not been able to open my own copy of Lila's Child yet because I know for a fact quotes from my Father are in it. I am not quite ready to read them yet, though I'm getting there, 10 years on (I'm slow and if you or anyone else on this list wants to think less of me for being an emotional coward I cheerfully encourage you). Yes, my whole house is full of things that remind me of him, but things are not the same as shared thoughts and ideas (far more valuable than the things). Anyway, I appreciate the quote without having to open the book.
The reason I place the MoQ outside (above, actually) the four static levels is because they are a description of four static levels of subject-object understanding. Everything about them is couched in terms of subjectivity/objectivity. All existing Western metaphysical systems prior to Pirsig (including my, admittedly non-academic, understanding of James) are just variations on the theme of different ways to parse subjects and objects. It was not until Pirsig came along in the West that we were offered an alternative - and yes, DMB, I find James alternative lacking and incomplete. I agree with Bo's oft-stated objection to including the MoQ in the Intellectual Level because it is beyond subject-objectivity. Yes, it is indeed explained and understood in the context of a book, which by the nature of books, makes it a subject-object "subject" of study by definition, but yet it uses this platform only to convey the concept. It is not founded upon it. That for me is the big difference. Pirsig even says something similar below about how you cannot call science a religion even though it is based on a set of beliefs. James was trying to get there, but he didn't have it all figured out. He was the "proto-Pirsig". All other Western metaphysics, science, etc. take SOL as a complete given. They assume SOL and go from there. Do you see the difference? As to where I would "put" the MoQ I would say that it along with Buddhism rest above the four static levels. All the types of metaphysics (of which the MoQ and Buddhism are the only two I know) that do not base their original premises on subject-object logic reside in this upper "ether". And by the way, for DMB, and Ant (whom I know from way back), and Matt, and Steve's benefit, there are those of us who have a great deal of formal education (Engineering in my case) who do not have an academic level knowledge of philosophy, so you can save the supercilious attitude for those who failed to finish high school. Mary - The most important thing you will ever make is a realization. > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:moq_discuss- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Horse > Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2010 5:27 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [MD] Problems with the Academic Approach > > Hi Platt > > On 17/04/2010 21:40, [email protected] wrote: > > Hi Horse, > > > > In answer to your question, 1) I don't ignore everything he says, and > 2) I > > agree with his statement that "The MOQ is in opposition to subject- > object > > metaphysics." > > > Note that he doesn't say that the intellectual level and SOM are the > same thing. > > All one has to do is read chapters 22 and 24 of Lila where Pirsig > savages > > SOM which he specifically identifies as the intellectual level. > > > > Nonsense. Pirsig repeatedly refutes this position and does so in Notes > 129, 131 and 133 of Lila's Child. You continue to ignore him. > > I know academics and other self-appointed intellectuals don't like to > hear > > that their mindset "was screwing everything up," and no doubt his > > stinging rebuke of the way they have mismanaged society has caused > > his work to be largely ignored in SOM universities. His endorsement > of > > capitalism over socialism only serves to strengthened the wall of > > immunity against him erected by the professorial elites. > > > > As Dave said, to paraphrase, seen in the bigger picture this is just > not so. > > > Finally, I appreciate your citing note 133 in Lila's Child in which > Pirsig > > makes reference to my and Bo's "brilliant thinking." :-) > > > > > > To put the conversation into context: > > Platt: > So, I fully agree with Bo's insight that the SOM and the intellectual > level are one and the same. To support it, to protect it, to avoid > losing it and sinking back to "anything goes" irrationalism or a > "because God says so" mentality, we need to recognize its vulnerability > to attacks from academic philosophers, social do-gooders, spiritual > evangelists, and its own internal paradoxes. To that end, the MOQ is > the > best S/O answer I've found yet. > > Pirsig: > I think this conclusion undermines the MOQ, although that is obviously > not Platt's intention. It is like saying that science is really a form > of religion. There is some truth to that, but it has the effect > dismissing science as really not very important. The MOQ is in > opposition to subject-object metaphysics. To say that it is a part of > that system which it opposes sounds like a dismissal. I have read that > the MOQ is the same as Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Hegel, James, > Peirce, > Nieztsche, Bergson, and many others even though these > people are not held to be saying the same as each other. This kind of > comparison is what I have meant by the term, "philosophology." It is > done by people who are not seeking to understand what is written but > only to classify it so that they don't have to see it as > anything new. God knows the MOQ has never had two better friends than > Bo > and Platt, so this is no criticism of their otherwise brilliant > thinking. It's just that I see a lowering of the quality of the MOQ > itself if you follow this path of subordinating it to that which it > opposes. > > So not only does Pirsig think you're undermining the MoQ, he also says > that you are effectively dismissing the MoQ and practising > philosophology. And for good measure, he sees what you are proposing as > "lowering of the quality of the MOQ itself if you follow this path of > subordinating it to that which it opposes". > > Interesting that you missed these. > > Cheers > > Horse > > -- > > Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of > arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but to skid > in sideways, chocolate in one hand, wine in the other, body thoroughly > used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO what a ride!"... > Hunter S Thompson > > > 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
