Hi dmb, > Steve replied: > Pirsig should have been careful to make that distinction, but unfortunately > that is not what Pirsig says. Pirsig says that when the people who "still > have their glasses on" hear the statements of the one who has taken off his > glasses, the ones who "still" have their glasses on "regard his statements as > somewhat weird." ..I see him as having slipped up here. You, it would seem, > would prefer to look the other way. Fine. Whatever. >
> dmb says to Steve and Matt: > No, I'm saying there is no need to look the other way. You're are objecting > to the idea that someone could take off the interpretive glasses and offer an > interpretation at the same time, which would contradict MOQ's basic > architecture. The MOQ itself is a static interpretation that does, in fact, > make many "crazy sounding" statements about experience without the glasses. > The MOQ itself is an example of "statements of the one who has taken off his > glasses". > > I think you are ignoring the substance of his remarks, pretending that he > doesn't have a hell of a lot to say about the connections between DQ, > insanity and enlightenment and you're adding simultaneity to Pirsig's > comments in order to manufacture a "slip up" where there really isn't one. I > think you're objection is fake and petty. Steve: You are accusing me of ignoring, pretending, manufacturing, and making fake objections. It is safe to say that the sort of trust necessary for a productive conversation isn't present. I am sincere in wanting to read this passage in a way that isn't problematic in terms of other aspects of Pirsig's philosophy. I don't want to do any pretending or manufacturing. I want to take Pirsig at his word and find out what he is saying rather than just pretend he is saying what I wish he would say. We agree that we can compare what someone says while wearing one pair of glasses to what someone says who is wearing a different set of glasses. We agree that it makes no sense to think about the things that someone without glasses is saying while he is not wearing any glasses, but we disagree about whether that is what the Pirsig quote says. We also disagree about whether it makes sense to talk about comparing the statements of one who is has gone from some time _without_ glasses to the statements of one has been perennially stuck _with_ glasses. As I see things, no one is with or without some set of glasses to a greater or lesser degree than anyone else. I am dubious about the idea of Enlightenment as walking around all day with no such cultural glasses. I can understand the Buddha as someone who has some good ideas, but ideas are always culturally situated and depend entirely on a particular set of glasses. Further, I can buy the Buddha as someone who knows he is wearing glasses, but I don't agree that "The MOQ itself is an example of "statements of the one who has taken off his glasses." I see it as statements from someone who has traded in one pair of glasses for another. This new pair has the important advantage that it is a perspective that includes the idea that it is just one perspective. It is a better perspective, but not a more immediate one. It is not any more in touch with reality (i.e., less mediated by a set of lenses) than any other perspective. 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
