[David] I've said that Pirsig's *metaphysics* has greater explanatory power than James'. I don't claim that James doesn't have good ideas of his own. Or indeed that ideas in SOM aren't as good as they always were.
[Arlo] Fair enough, although I don't see that changes my point. I'm not sure I see the point of bringing in "SOM ideas" here, except to imply that James' ideas are "SOM". This, as I've said, comes from the fallacy that everything "non-Pirsig" or "non-MOQ" or even "pre-MOQ" is ipso facto SOM. That's just not true. Again, we can argue (and I do) that Pirsig's MOQ is the best non-SOM framework out there, but we really need to understand that other authors and traditions have also been critical of, and opposed to, S/O primacy. I've named a few that I've found, and James is one of them. [David] If we think in dichotomies as if there is one 'true' explanation of things, as if it's SOM vs MOQ then I can see how you would be drawn to this conclusion. But as we both know, the MOQ isn't anti-SOM. All ideas are just as good as they always were. [Arlo] Well, I agree with where this starts, but am not sure the reason for jumping to SOM here. The point should be that there are other non-SOM voices, of which James is one, and an understanding of both-in-synthesis illuminates more darkness than either one solo. I said nothing to the point of SOM-ideas, right now I am only concerned with understanding that there are many non-SOM ideas and voices in the Academy, and that as a sub-population of the West, it is often less impacted by SOM-effects than other sub-populations. And, here, an understanding for how these voices resonate provides a stronger, more complete academic (or otherwise) rejection of SOM. Now, I admit I saw implied in your initial post to DMB the suggestion that we can safely and without sacrifice ignore voices, like James, who do not say the exact thing, with the exact words, as Pirsig. You've indicated I was in error with that, and if so then I'll accept that. [David] So, it's not just a matter of saying James + Pirsig is better than just Pirsig. The key is how we integrate James + Pirsig… [Arlo] Absolutely. And I think DMB's posts on this have been without parallel. James, Dewey and Northrop, I'd argue, likely constitute the critical "core" of authors that it'd be hard to fathom why anyone interested in Pirsig would want to ignore. I mean, how could reading them do anything but enhance an understanding and appreciation for Pirsig? I appreciate time constraints and all that, but frankly it amazes me that so many people on this list not only have not read, for example, Granger's book on Pirsig and Dewey, but would actively ignore it entirely. 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
