Sounds to me like a conversation is being kept alive regardless that it has lost its meaning, context or purpose.
From: david buchanan <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 4:50 PM Subject: Re: [MD] Getting in touch with reality 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 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
