Hi dmb, > Arlo interjected: > I wanted to comment on this, because it is both a common sentiment here and > one that presents a false distinction. ...I think one confusion is that > everything "non-MOQ" is ipso facto "SOM", and this is simply absurd. Pirsig's > MOQ may be the best alternative to SOM but it isn't the only intellectual > consideration that is attempting to move away from an S/O lens. > Cultural-historical psychology, emergence theories, semiotics, > structurationists, even the oft cited scholars of James and Dewey, all these > (and others) are at least questioning the primacy of subjects and objects, > even if they lack the language of Pirsig's MOQ. ...I'd say the effects of the > SOM lens are stronger among most non-academic communities, and the ongoing > trend towards consumerism noted in ZMM is one example of the ruinous outcome > of SOM on the larger populations as a whole. > > dmb says: > I agree. > > If everything outside the MOQ is viewed as SOM, then that view will simply > dismiss academia, science and philosophy. It's not very hard to see how this > absurd position leads directly to an excessively robust anti-intellectualism.
I'm not sure how you could draw this conclusion. Far from rejecting academia, science and philosophy I think they would benefit greatly from the metaphysical language which the MOQ brings with it. Wouldn't you agree? There might be other philosophies which reject the SOM outlook, but they would still all pretty much value truth as the most important thing and how it is supreme above all would they not? I would classify metaphysical outlooks which do not replace truth with something else as SOM based. Even non-truth based philosophies such as 'Rorty' still fail to replace it with anything else.. The person who comes closest to the MOQ as you note below is James. This is confirmed by Pirsig in Lila. However James still didn't appreciate the magnitude of the problem.. He tried to explain himself but was still caught up in the SOM thinking of everyone else. He couldn't explain himself in a way that others would understand.. "He was getting a definite impression that James' philosophy was incomplete and that the Metaphysics of Quality might actually improve on it. A philosophologist would normally be indignant at the impertinence of someone thinking he could improve on the great Harvard philosopher, but James himself, to judge from what Phsdrus had read so far, would have been very enthusiastic about the effort. He was, after all, a philosopher." > At this risk of sounding like a snob, this is one area where it really helps > to know something about the wider world of philosophy. There are lots of > thinkers who've grappled with that dualism and rejected it in various ways - > for at least two centuries. As far as I can tell, no thinker will help more > than James and Dewey. I mean, if the aim is to understand Pirsig's particular > critique of SOM and his particular alternative then nobody will be more > illuminating than those two radical empiricists. Heidegger is much harder to > read but his critique of technology will illuminate Pirsig's critique of > technology - so well that it's scary. > > Bashing academia is NOT heroic - not unless you have something better to > offer. In fact, it's not even interesting. People who do that, I just assume > they're some kind of right-wing ignoramus. Sorry. Right, well to defend myself here I was not bashing academia, I was doing the opposite in noting how important it is and how great it would be if the MOQ was accepted by academia. -David. 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
