On May 2, 2011, at 10:13 AM, Steven Peterson wrote: > Hi DMB, all > > > On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 1:25 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Please notice the difference between the following statements. (1) Things do >> not exist inherently or independently. (2) Things do not exist. >> The first statement makes a negative claim about the nature of things. It >> qualifies the existence of things by denying that they are permanent or >> essential or that they exist in isolation from each other, that they are >> discrete, discontinuous entities in themselves. The second statement simply >> denies any kind of existence at all. The first statement pushes back against >> Platonism, essentialism, objectivity and other forms of reification. The >> second statement far more drastic, maybe even ridiculous. The aspirin I'm >> about to take may not have anything like an independent or inherent >> existence but I fully expect that it really will relieve my pain. And I stop >> at red lights too, despite the fact that it's JUST a conventional reality. >> We can reject the metaphysical premise behind scientific materialism and >> still be afraid whenever anyone ever points a gun at us. There are concrete >> realities and practical consequences that can't just be sweep under the rug, >> or shrugged off with a sce >> tic indifference. The MOQ is not some magic chant that makes the world >> dissolve into misty dreams. >> Yes, the mysticism and the Zen are very, very important central elements. >> But it's also about fixing things and the good cuts of meat. It's also a >> form of pragmatism that says our normal, conventional reality cannot >> function without quality. Remember that thought experiment in ZAMM wherein >> Pirsig takes us through a grocery store with no quality and how drastically >> that was changed? The title of ZAMM is just about enough to let you know >> that it's aimed at a kind of re-enchantment of the ordinary, finding the >> Buddha in the gears of bike or, as James would put it, returning philosophy >> to the earth of things. It is decidedly NOT otherworldly. Don't you think? >> Even its mysticism is NOT otherworldly. Don't you think? And what other >> reality do we ever have? I think it would be best to reject the existence of >> reality as we understand it conventionally and conceptually only between >> meals and never while you're driving. > > Steve: > The above is a point worth making. Saying something is JUST > conventional puts it on the same level as 2+2=4, tigers, and > Hiroshima, and lots of things that we can ignore only at our peril. > Even after you recognize that it is impossible to disentangle some > absolute reality from our descriptions of reality, we still can't > reasonably write everything off as merely conventional. There is > nothing MERE about it when it is literally everything. > > Pirsig's view does not postulate an autonomous agent as a fundamental > premise that wills this and that, and so free will of the classical > sort is denied by the MOQ. > > I recall some important thoughts Pirsig wrote about on freedom in an > introduction or postscript to some edition of something. He talked > about how American's hold freedom as an ideal, but that is problematic > since freedom only says that something is bad. It is only a negative > notion. It doesn't tell us what good we all want. Does anyone have > that quote or know where to find it? > > Best, > Steve
Hi Steve, I don't think that 'writing things off' is contained within the definition of MERE or JUST. 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
