John, I hate it when I do that, I was trying to save but sent too soon. Give me time to make my case, I can't do it in one or even a few emails. I've written enough for two books and I'd be happy to share it with you off line, or as we go.
But I believe the way of Zen, the Romantic movement, moq and all such systems that deny the Creator-creation distinction, and therefor worship the creation, give a false representation of transcending opposites.. Instead they simply oscillate endlessly between their dialectical poles-each of which always excludes the other. Romanticism and Moq don't transcend, they are exclusive in the sense that they really diminish the other pole-static quality-to include it. This is not true transcendence. But you make a wonderful point about knowing yourself and this is the key to the whole business. Dooyeweerd shows how all theoretical thought is centered in the human heart.The Bible repeatedly claims that the heart is the center of mans being. This means that no knowledge of the universe is possible without self-knowledge. And this involves looking at your presuppositions, the inclination of your heart before you even begin to sort things out. And this involves mans religious belief and the religious ground motives which he often absorbs from his culture. Pirsig's Moq can be understood by tracing philosophical and theological thought since Kant, and before of course. He embodies our current paradigm that is rooted in eastern thought. Have you read Schopenhauer and the way he explains Kant and the history of philosophy. Schopenhauer introduced the Eastern texts to the West. And it is from the wake of Kant, Schop, and Hegel and the German Idealists, thru Niet. and Heidegger that we get the same message of Pirsig. And this is the same message written up in a recent Newsweek article-we are all Hindus now! This is our current paradigm, and this is the wave Pirsig was riding and why he hit such a nerve. But its traceable back to this great turn in philosophy in the West, and you can even trace it back to the beginning of the 12th century and the rise of the Sensate age, to use Sorokin's terminology. What we see in the 20th and 21st centuries is a breakdown of the sensate era and a shift to and idealistic age, again from Sorokin. The Moq is totally understandable in this light and is just one more example of this great turn in the history of the West, which I believe is a turn in the wrong, and in a tragic, direction. Anyway, it will take a while for me to make this case as I would like. Take care, Jon On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 12:57 PM, Jon Bennett <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi John, > I'm in the process of writing a book as well. In fact, Pirsig's style has > been a strong influence on my style. > > If it were not a copyright violation I would call it Zen, The Cross, and > Motorcycle Maintenance. He has left out a view. > > Other possible titles are The Cross, The Clock, the Lotus, but probably, > The Cross, the Clock, The Circle. > > Pirsig has overlooked a view. Yes, we need a new paradigm. But he has not > "transcended the opposites", even the opposites of the Enlightenment and > Romanticism which are reflected in the Title-Zen representing the Romantic > roots and influences of nature worship and a nature based system of belief, > and MM, representing the world view of modern science and the Enlightenment. > > As I tried to make the case on the Roots thread, he does not transcend > these views, but is viewing reality from the Romantic perspective-which was > all about transcending opposites as well. > > On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 11:43 AM, John Carl <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Jon B, >> >> Philosophy 101 - Know Thyself. You say Pirsig fails at this task. I'd >> like >> to know how you reach that conclusion. He wrote a whole book objectifying >> himself as Phaedrus, analyzing his motivations and premises and reaching a >> conclusion that overthrows his own metaphysical basis. >> >> What more can a guy do? >> >> John C. >> >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 8:02 AM, Jon Bennett <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > Hey Guys, >> > >> > Sometimes philosophers don't understand the implications, or even the >> core >> > assumptions of their own ideas. This is very common in the history of >> > philosophy, with one philosopher decrying the way he is grouped or >> > classified, or the uses made of their philosophy. >> > >> > Sometimes they are right. Sometime they don't see the larger trend that >> > they >> > are a part of, or the fuller implications or the erroneuous assumptions >> of >> > their thought. This, I believe, is the case with with Pirsig. >> > >> > Be Sweet, >> 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
