On Apr 14, 2011, at 3:59 PM, david buchanan wrote: > > dmb said to Marsha: > ...These are metaphysical posits and that's what is being rejected, the > notion that there is some kind of entity behind thoughts and things. > Marsha replied: > Which exact "metaphysical posits" are you talking about. Posted by > Pirsig's? By Descartes? By Santa Claus's? > > dmb says: > Wow. You're even more confused than I thought. The metaphysical posits I'm > talking about are subjects and objects and yes, they were posited by > Descartes. That's why Pirsig and lots of other philosophers call this subject > "the Cartesian self". It is the conception of the self adopted by most Modern > philosophers. That's what Pirsig and James are rejecting, not to mention John > Dewey and a whole bunch of other pragmatists. But, like I said, that doesn't > mean that Robert Pirsig is a fiction. Somehow, miraculously, he can reject > the Cartesian self and still collect royalty checks at his fixed address. > Like I said, Pirsig is saying that you and he are better conceived as a > complex ecology of processes rather than some essential thing. Pirsig is > saying that there is no entity that does the thinking or rather that the > thinking itself is the thinker.
Marsha: No poop, popeye. > > Marsha said: > Ohhhhh, you have left the MoQ for a higher, broader intellectual context. > From what theoretical platform are these statements being made? Do I get a > hint? > > dmb says: > No, I haven't left the MOQ. I'm simply telling you that the MOQ rejects what > SOM says about the self. And you're confusing that with the MOQ's conception > of the self. You're rejecting the complex ecology of static patterns along > with the Cartesian self, as if they were the same thing. They are not at all > the same. You're rejecting the MOQ's conception of the self as a ridiculous > fiction. Like I said, you're totally missing the point and you have a deeply > confused notion of what is being rejected. Marsha: Please let's make that 'useful illusions'. Analogy all the way down. > dmb: > Again - and it is not hyperbole - the consequences of your view is that it > leads to a rather vacuous nihilism. If you and me and Pirsig are all just > useful fictions, then the notion that static reality is made of value all the > way down is completely wrecked. In your hands, the whole evolutionary moral > hierarchy becomes some meaningless dream. Why worry about all the suffering > people in the world if they're just illusions? Marsha: There is no choice involved. Understanding dynamic quality is all about caring. > > No, that's just a disaster and it's also wildly incorrect. I mean, Pirsig is > asserting the reality of Quality and he's saying that our conceptual > understanding have real consequences in the world. Rejecting SOM isn't just > some academic exercise. It's about correcting the negative consequences at > the cultural and personal levels. Isn't the main point of the MOQ to assert > that excellence is the most real of all? The source and substance of > everything. Pirsig is saying it would be best to act as if reality - yes, all > the normal, conventional static realities, including ourselves - is made of > values all the way down. Treat the world and ourselves as static patterns of > VALUE is going to have very different consequences than would follow if we > treated the same as a fiction. The latter is a complete reversal of the MOQ's > world and it would result in an outrageous moral nightmare. Ironically, SOM > already led us to the same vacuous nihilism where nothing is right and > nothing is wron g > because values aren't real. Everything just functions, like machinery. That's > the central problem the MOQ is supposed to address but your reading just puts > us right back in the meaningless soup of it all. Marsha: Values all the way down. Useful illusions all the way down. None of it is meaningless, it is all valuable or it would exist as a static pattern. > Look, on the common sense level the MOQ is just saying that the self is not > some disembodied soul or entity. INSTEAD, the MOQ says the self is a thing > like any other thing and exists in relation to things. The self is also a > biological organism with eyes and ears and everything and it exists in > relation to other biological organisms. The self is also a social being, a > language user and exists in relation to other members of the society. The > self is also (hopefully) an intellectual being whose understandings exist in > relation to wider discourse. And that complex ecology of static patterns > exists within the ongoing flux of life. Betterness is the game. Caring, > engaged, artful living is what it recommends. > Provisional does not mean fictional. Plural truth does not mean truth is an > illusion. Rejecting Descartes does not mean you get a life-long moral > vacation. Rejecting essentialist notions of fixed and eternal truths does not > mean that life is but a dream. If your ideas stink, reality will smack you up > side your head. These are concrete, empirical realities, not metaphysical > speculations about entities beyond our experience or the ultimate nature of > the universe. It's about what's good and right and true, right now, in > English, here on earth. Marsha: Caring, engaged, artful living is the natural fallout of mindfulness/awareness. > We don't need to make any questionable metaphysical claims to assert that > Robert Pirsig said this or thinks that. To pretend that we cannot cite the > author for mystical reasons is just completely ridiculous. Something like six > million copies of Zen and Art have been published so far. In what sense is > that not real? In what sense are concepts not real? Marsha: Do you remember the word 'provisional?' > See you're conflating the problem with the solution all the way across the > board. The say that Pirsig has no inherent or independent existence is to > reject a specific essentialist or Platonic conception of existence, but it is > NOT a rejection of existence itself. C'mon, think about it. How would that > work? The MOQ rejects the fixed and eternal and replaces that conception with > one of process and evolution, a living, breathing reality. But you've taken > this to mean that nothing is real. You've turned it into new-age nonsense > that makes contact with concrete reality at no point. It's just nihilistic, > free-floating, relativistic dream. > Yuk. No thanks. Marsha: If you've read Alan Wallace, you know what clear, simple explanation and good writing is all about. This post is ranting, not explanation. ___ 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
