Hi Adrie, I appreciate what you state below. The underlying coercive tactics behind the use and presentation of quotes was the intention of my post. One can certainly present scripture so long as it is used to support one's own contention. To claim that such a contention is completely in line with that of James or Pirsig, and should therefore be the one adopted, is not honest. As such, a quote can be used to provide another way of stating what the body of the post was describing, not as proof that a position is correct. We present our own opinions here, not those of a dead philosopher. Those opinions are left for a classroom. It is the difference between simply learning and that of creating. Presenting something as a party line is destructive to the creative process.
It would seem that the intention is to put MoQ within the context of some other movement of American Philosophy. This is like tying knots between a variety of ropes to provide a hammock that one can comfortably lie in. The comfort of such a hammock is subjective. Many will claim to have the right or best hammock, but do not be deceived. MoQ has it non-intellectual roots in philosophies much older than those re-expressed in the 20th century. Those are just the tip of the iceberg. (Hammocks and icebergs, hmm, lemonade on a lazy summer's day). Cheers, Mark On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 2:50 AM, ADRIE KINTZIGER <[email protected]> wrote: > re,.. > Hi Mark. > With all respect,you forgot to mention that it is Pirsig himself providing > the lead > to work with William James presented work, and Dmb is not only trying to > deploy just this, > as for the benefit og the Moq, but as well to provide us with the tools we > need to develop ourselves in the philosophycal fields,to come to a better > understanding of the presented > abstractions. > > Honesty?I think he is to honest mostly,and i do not agree on attempts to try > to isolate him, > corner him as a philosophical buccaneer. > And i Honestly think he is very generous if one ask things properly from > him. > > Adrie > > 2011/3/19 118 <[email protected]> > >> Hi All, >> As with any movement with those devoted to its cause, there are those >> who take a dogmatic stance. I have had discussions with Christians >> who quote the bible to me as if it were truth, and Buddhists who have >> done the same. There are those who try to use whatever coercive >> rhetoric they can so that their opinions appear to be the most >> credible. >> >> Dmb appears to be one of these people. I was interested why dmb was >> so fanatical about James, so I took some time to reread some of his >> stuff. Sure, James is spiritual, but we knew that from this Varieties >> essays. I appears to me that dmb quotes James completely out of >> context. It is as if he scours the literature to find some quote >> which will support his position. I can easily find selective quotes >> from James which will completely deny dmb's position. He seems to do >> the same with Pirsig by carefully selecting quotes so that he appears >> to be right. This is not worthy of this forum, and dmb is rapidly >> loosing his credibility. He pretends that he is on James' or Pirsig's >> side when he provides selective quotes, and then berates us for being >> against Pirsig (see below) if we don't agree with him. Not only is >> this misleading, but it lacks honesty. To claim a Truth is out of >> order in MoQ, we should all know that. To say that something is not >> true (see below) is missing the whole point and relies on some Western >> concept of truth. This certainly sets MoQ back. >> >> I am fine with contributors expressing their opinions, but when they >> say that they speak for Pirsig, I find it annoying. I would hope that >> some will desist from taking selective quotes out of context and then >> admonish us for not believing what they are proposing. It is not >> conducive to progress in this discipline. Of course, people can do >> anything they want, and this is just my humble opinion. >> >> Regards, >> Mark >> >> On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 6:45 AM, david buchanan <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> > Mary said to Arlo: >> > I'm exposing the idea that Pirsig's MoQ offers a metaphysics with much >> greater explanatory power than James'. James' ideas are provincial. If you >> were not human, you would find his theories quaint and limited. The MoQ, on >> the other hand, proposes a static evolutionary system that would be true no >> matter what the starting point of a universe. >> > >> > dmb says: >> > That's not true, actually. James says that we can think of the entire >> universe as noetic all the way down, but not in a grand unified way. It's a >> Pluralistic universe in which "everything gets known by something". Also, >> James and Pirsig are both radically humanist but neither is a subjectivist >> or a solipsist. >> > >> > Mary continued: >> > Let's say time and mass were not the initial SPOVs in some alternate >> universe. I am suggesting that the SQ evolutionary logic Pirsig has >> employed would hold equally well under any conditions while James' would not >> have relevance. >> > >> > dmb says: >> > Actually, that's not true either. James talks about how some genius in >> the distant past invented the idea of objects and he says that it could have >> turned out differently. >> > I strongly suspect that you don't know much about James and you've >> certainly offered no reason or basis for making these claims. And I happen >> to know that they're simply wrong. >> > Besides, since Pirsig it was himself who decided to write and published >> those chapters in Lila comparing James with the MOQ, dismissing James is to >> disrespect and disregard the views of the thinker you are ostensibly >> defending. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > 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 > 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
