Hi Arlo, > [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.
Yes James opposed it, but he never was able to explain himself in a way which could quickly and easily avoid the charge that he was "attempting to prostitute truth to the values of the marketplace". As I've just explained to dmb, before the MOQ there was not a clear line in the sand one could draw between SOM and a better metaphysical system such as the MOQ. Without the ability to do this - the line between what is SOM and what isn't - can very quickly become very confused. That's not to say that some thinkers were more closely aligned with the MOQ than others, but it is thanks to this fundamental division that we can make any comparison. Without these two terms our discussion would be much poorer as a result. The difference is in explanatory power, not necessarily philosophical outlook. > [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. I would say that while James is anti-SOM he never clearly draws a line in the sand and thus never creates a new metaphysical system as a result. So, as I say above this gets him caught out trying to explain his ideas to other people. The beauty of the MOQ is not just that is a good metaphysics. But that it draws this line in the sand between it and what has existed before so people stop trying to place truth before all else.. We have 2500 years of metaphysical habit to break. That's not going to happen overnight :-) > [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. Yes, I have no trouble with implying that there are some people on this discussion board such as Marsha who wilfully ignore things. More than just other thinkers though, Marsha would prefer to ignore 'truth' entirely and it seems that Mark would prefer to ignore the entire book called Lila. Thanks Arlo, -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
