Hi Matt, > Steve said: > Ironically, the direct (preconceptual)/indirect (conceptual) distinction > that dmb is trying to use to push against us itself makes the so-called > "out of touch with DQ" problem impossible or at least merely > "secondary." If this problem is (as dmb must be saying) a problem > with our concepts, it (and even the whole problem of SOM versus > the MOQ) is merely a "secondary" problem. > > Matt: > Now, this is an interesting insight. It seems to scan, too: even > SOM-philosophers are able to have direct experience despite their > inability to conceptualize it (properly, we might say). This makes > philosophy a kind of therapy (much like Wittgenstein envisioned), > where one tries and get people to stop fussing with bad > philosophical hang-ups. Ultimately, one might say (meaning > "primarily"), it doesn't matter what philosophy one holds in terms > of one's ability to tune into the direct experience of one's life. But > if it _does_ get in the way, well--so says the therapeutic > Pirsig--here's a way of not so getting hung up.
Steve: Right. The issue as I see it is that while dmb is trying to push against us with the notion of philosophy as getting in touch with life (he objects that we are failing to adequately do that), we see philosophy as concerned with making life better. Best, Steve 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
