Hey John, I like the J.B., many of my closes friends have always called me that.
Just a quick thought or two. Maybe we need too expand our thought before we narrow it. Even Mr. P said that the first division in our metaphysics was the most important one. If we look at all world views, all belief systems that start with the relationship of the Creator to the creations, you will see the genus from which all these different species of belief system comes from. Start with this division and you will see certain common features in the various wv's I've mentioned. Without fail, belief systems that avoid the Creator-creation distinction are governed by to mutually exclusive principles. One of those principles "claims" to unite both principles, but it always exclued the other principle, which claims that the two principles are absolutely different and mutually exclusive. So the very nature of both principles leaves them in an eternal conflict. One is a principle of absolute change, and one is a principle of absolute changelessness, and never the twain shall meet-not in Zen, Hinduism, Platonism, neo-platonism, Hegelianism, or Moq. Mog absolutizes change at the expense of an absolute changeless. Although moq, like taoism, claims to incorporate change and transcend the conflict, it never does, it never can! Change is the guiding principle of moq, not absolute changelessness, which is the driving principle of the Enlightenment. That is why moq does not transcend the classic (enlightenment) and the romantic divide, although this is its central claim, it is an illusion. You can't not have your cake, and eat it too! Tell me more of Royce, I have some books about him but am not up on his thought. And how do you see him related to James and Pirsig. Thanks, Jon On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 4:01 PM, John COne iarl <[email protected]>wrote: > J.B., > > By all means, take your time. No rush at all. You seem like you have some > very interesting points to discuss and I'm looking forward to debating > them. > > 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. > > > > "Eastern thought" as a monolithic whole seems to me as tricky to > conceptualize as "western thought" from where I'm standing on this round > planet, as I pointed out yesterday. It might help to narrow the focus. > > You could even call Christianity an "eastern thought", and I have found > much > to appreciate and defend in Buddhism, but nothing I've really cared for in > Hinduism. And there are differing schools of Buddhism with Zen being such > a > particular and hyper-pure offshoot that it's way seems long way from the > Middle Way. > > Thus, you'll have to pin down the concepts you're attacking. > > Eventually. > > > > > > Have you read Schopenhauer and the way he > > explains Kant and the history of philosophy. > > > > > > No, I haven't read Schopenhauer. I only know he's the philosopher that > begins with "S". (monty python allusion) And I've read what Josiah Royce > thought of him (enthusiasm). > > Have you ever heard of Josiah Royce? He's my main classical interest and I > pretty much joined the list (or technically "rejoined") because I wanted to > discuss him with the many W. James followers found in the MoQ. Which > didn't > work out quite the way I planned, but it's been an engrossing engagement > nevertheless. > > > > 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! > > > > Royce has a quote regarding being regarded as an "Hegelian" which I think > is > apropos of Pirsig as well, which is the only true Hegelians were Hegel and > his immediate followers. Like "eastern thought" I find it a term too broad > of interpretation to be truly helpful. > > Hinduism just never clicked with me. I'm with Guatama on that one. > > > 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. > > > > > I guess my question for you then is the same as I have for the mullah who > blames earthquakes on seductively dressed women. Why does this go only one > way? If biblical teachings produced all the individual freedoms and human > rights that we enjoy today, then why didn't those same teachings produce a > satisfactory modern paradigm? > > You can say, "because mankind chose to abandon them", but if they formed > our > society, how do you know it wasn't God's will to produce a society that > eventually abandons biblical teachings? > > > > > > Anyway, it will take a while for me to make this case as I would like. > > > > > > Of that, I'm sure! Good luck with the book. I'll be here. > > J.C. > 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
