Am i making sense? (Marsha.) Lately I've been thinking about RMP's adamant statement that between ZMM and LILA, LILA is the more important book. Why? What is the most profound difference? It is the transformation from Classical/Romantic to Dynamic/static. In leaving behind the literary-historical terms "romantic" and "classical" the emphasis has transformed from one of form to affect. The Dynamic/static represents the affect, the experience, the intensity in the response, regardless of the form. ----------------------------------------------
Classic/romantic=> hybridism in philosophy Dynamic/static=> hybridism in philosophy Form/affect=> hybridism in philosphy Radical empiricism/pragmatism=> hybridism in philosphy Direct expirience/conceptualisation =Hybridism in Philosophy, (Pirsig) Dynamic Quality/static quality=>stepping away from hybridism in Philosophy by placing Quality itself on top of the pyramid. (James),Empiricism/pragmatism, never moved out of the hybrid form, Pirsig actually improved William's work. Now , Marsha , Yin/ yang.=> hybridism in Buddistic philosophy,particle wave duality at the core is it static quality or dynamic quality? Print out the symbol representing yin and yang, cut it out of the paper with a scissor, ..now put a needle in the center and hold it between your finger and thumb, spin it around fast, it will move up to dynamic quality as the opposite of static quality. You stepped it out of the hybrid form. This is what Robert did with quality. So yes you made sense, more than you think. Try it 2011/3/7 MarshaV <[email protected]> > > > Marsha: > > Lately I've been thinking about RMP's adamant statement that between > ZMM and LILA, LILA is the more important book. Why? What is the most > profound difference? It is the transformation from Classical/Romantic to > Dynamic/static. In leaving behind the literary-historical terms "romantic" > and "classical" the emphasis has transformed from one of form to affect. > The Dynamic/static represents the affect, the experience, the intensity in > the response, regardless of the form. Am I making sense? > > --- > > My hypothesis is that the major difference between ZMM and Lila was leaving > behind form for affect. I think I'll leave this open for a clearer answer. > > > > > > On Mar 6, 2011, at 1:26 PM, david buchanan wrote: > > Marsha said: > > Lately I've been thinking about RMP's adamant statement that between ZMM > and LILA, LILA is the more important book. Why? What is the most profound > difference? It is the transformation from Classical/Romantic to > Dynamic/static. In leaving behind the literary-historical terms "romantic" > and "classical" the emphasis has transformed from one of form to affect. > The Dynamic/static represents the affect, the experience, the intensity in > the response, regardless of the form. Am I making sense? > > > > dmb says: > > Lila is more philosophically serious and explicit than ZAMM. Pirsig wrote > it, he said, because one "can't have a metaphysics that consists of just one > word." > > Actually, he was already switching from classic and romantic to static > and dynamic within the pages of ZAMM. He realized at a certain point that > classic and romantic are both static, they are both intellectual, that they > are different styles of thought. When forced to choose between romantic > Platonism (Phaedrus) and classical Aristotelianism (the Narrator), Pirsig > sides with the Sophists, with Protagoras! And this distinction is not just > literary, it's also about rival metaphysical stances. > > > > "As we survey the history of metaphysics we soon realize that two pretty > distinct types of mind have filled it with their warfare. Let us call them > the rationalist and the empiricist types of mind. A saying of Coleridge's is > often quoted [Pirsig being one such quoter], to the effect that every one is > born either a platonist or an aristotelian. By aristotelian, he means > empiricist, and by platonist, he means rationalist; but... both of them were > rationalists as compared with the kind of empiricism which Democritus and > Protagoras developed; and Coleridge had better have taken either of those > names instead of Aristotle as his empiricist example." > > > > Clearly, this is the same clash of temperaments we find built right into > the structure of Pirsig's first novel. And the main idea is to fuse the two > thought styles, He says his central aim is to show how "rationality can be > tremendously improved, expanded and made far more effective through a formal > recognition of Quality in its operation." (ZAMM 278) That's where "affect" > comes in. It's not just a new philosophy, he says, it's "even broader than > that - new form of spiritual RATIONALITY". (ZAMM 358, emphasis is Pirsig's) > "He did nothing for Quality or the Tao. What benefited was reason." (ZAMM > 257) > > > > "Reason and Quality had become separated and in conflict with each other" > (358) back in the days of Plato. "It's been necessary since before the time > of Socrates to reject the passions, the emotions, in order to free the > rational mind for an understanding of nature's order", Pirsig says, but now > it's time for "reassimilating those passions which were originally fled > from. The passions, the emotions, the affective domain of man's > consciousness, are a part of nature's order too. The central part." (ZAMM > 294) > > > > In Lila, then we find the nuts and bolts of what it means to make reason > subordinate to Quality instead of the other way around. "Truth is a species > of the good," James and Pirsig say together. They both want thought to serve > life and not the other way around. Our ideas are derived from the immediate > flux of life and they are useful and true only to the extent that they are > successfully "set to work within the ongoing stream of experience", as James > puts it. And if our philosophies are going to be the servants of life, then > what hope is there unless we're willing to "admit that all our philosophies > are hypotheses, to which all our faculties, emotional as well as logical > help us, and the truest of which will at the final integration of things be > found in possession of the men whose faculties on the whole had the best > divining power?" In other words, our philosophies cannot be very true unless > they take account of human values and interests. What kind of empiricist can > rightl > y > > exclude the most ubiquitous and salient feature of our experiences as > they actually lived and felt? Not a radical empiricist, that's for sure. > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > >> On Mar 6, 2011, at 10:17 AM, ADRIE KINTZIGER wrote: > >> > >>> I was thinking this morning that Ham's point-of-view seems confined to > and > >>> represents the Intellectual Level, but that would be still within the > MoQ. > >>> > >>> Showing that the individual level needs more attention than is deserved > >>> until now,but i agree that Ham's line of reasoning will find itself > always > >>> at the > >>> intellectual level, not above it. > >>> It is an impossibility to outstep the arch of morality with the > proposals > >>> he made. > >>> > >>> 2011/3/6 MarshaV <[email protected]> > >>> > >>>> > >>>> Hello Andre, > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Mar 6, 2011, at 8:24 AM, Andre Broersen wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Marsha to Andre: > >>>>> > >>>>> Right, and Buddhism is pragmatic and is based on a radical empiricism > >>>> too. My concern is confining the MoQ to the Jamesian tradition. > >>>>> > >>>>> Andre: > >>>>> No such 'confining' intended Marsha. I should also say that in both > ZMM > >>>> and LILA, Pirsig has referred more to Taoism and (Zen)Buddhism than to > the > >>>> Jamesian tradition. I assume Ham has read both books. I used the quote > >>>> because I am not sure to what extent Ham is impressed by having his > >>>> Essentialist convictions refuted or questioned based on 'mystical' > Taoist/ > >>>> Zen Buddhist insights, despite his self-proclaimed familiarity with > Pirsig's > >>>> MOQ. > >>>>> > >>>>> Mind you, it seems to me that Ham is not impressed by anything > refuting > >>>> or even questioning his idea 'Essence'. Too much invested in it I > guess. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Marsha: > >>>> I am reminded of the book 'Nonduality' by David Loy, where he compares > the > >>>> Vedantic tradition against the Mahayana tradition; while the > points-of-view > >>>> are very, very different, the conclusions turn out to be the same. > What a > >>>> trick! Sooo interesting. > >>>> > >>>> I was thinking this morning that Ham's point-of-view seems confined to > and > >>>> represents the Intellectual Level, but that would be still within the > MoQ. > >>>> (Where else could it be?) How dangerous to demand that MoQ > definitions be > >>>> 'absolutely' NOT this or that. It pleases me when Mark reminds us > that RMP > >>>> provides analogies, not absolutes. And when John reminds us that a > >>>> metaphysics consists of examining one's assumptive presumptions. > >>>> > >>>> Ham is totally cool! I couldn't imagine this list without him. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Marsha > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> ___ > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> 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 > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> parser > >>> 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 > -- parser 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
