Steve said to dmb:
...What I am saying is that that discrepancy is not a problem to be solved. We
don't need to overcome the distinction between sq and DQ.
dmb says:
Who said the distinction is a problem to be overcome? The only problem is your
understanding of that distinction, which is what I'm trying to correct. You
and Matt are interpreting the MOQ's first and most basic distinction. You think
the problem of "being out of touch with reality" sounds like Platonism. You
think it can be a problem only if you buy into the appearance-reality
distinction or the subject-object distinction. I'm trying to explain why that's
wrong and what the MOQ's primary distinction actually does mean.
Steve said:
I keep asking you, and you keep neglecting to answer, if experience is reality,
how can we possibly be out of touch with reality? You have provided several
quotes where Pirsig seem to agree with you that we CAN be out of touch with
reality, but that is not an answer to how that notion could make any sense.
dmb says:
How in the world do you figure that Pirsig's answers don't count as real
answers to your question? Are you daft? What could count as a BETTER answer? On
top of that, you are citing Pirsig's answers to this problem to suggest that
there is no problem. Look at how you pose the question: You are "asking me how
it could be possible to be out of touch with reality if experience=reality".
The problem is that Platonism and SOM do NOT equate experience and reality.
That's the problem. That's how Quality became subservient in the first place.
Since equating experience and reality is Pirsig's solution to the problem,
citing his solution in order to deny the problem is quite preposterous.
Literally. If, as you say, "nothing we can ever think or do could make us more
or less in touch with it," then must think that SOM was never a problem in the
first place and amoral scientific objectivity never was spiritually empty,
aesthetically hollow or meaningless in any way. "If that is indeed wha
t his work is aimed at," you say, "then, yes, it is aimed at a fake problem.
How can the problem be "not seeing Quality" when EVERYTHING is Quality?"
See? You did it again. You cite Pirsig's solution to the problem to deny the
need for any solution. That's just dumb, Steve.
Look, Steve, you asked a direct question and I gave you a direct answer in the
words of the author himself. To suggest that this doesn't count as a good
answer is totally unreasonable. Can you think of anything that would count as a
better answer? The whole damn thing is about the problem of not seeing Quality
and he traces it all the way from the dutiful student with the thick-lensed
glasses all the way back to the pre-Socratic philosophers. where this blind
spot began. His attack on SOM is part of his hammering on this blind spot too.
His work is so thoroughly saturated with discussions of this problem and all
its various permutations that your denial strikes me as completely ridiculous
and wholly implausible.
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
