Mark said to dmb:
... Any philosophical discussion must therefore view MoQ as a model which
attempts to lead one towards a view through Quality. It makes absolutely no
sense to dwell on the specifics of MoQ as if the answer lies therein. This is
why I wonder why you quibble about finer points from Lila and do not address
the big picture. ...For many, Reason is seen as an answer. It should have
been made clear to those who read ZAMM, that reason is best as rhetoric. ...It
is time to leave Pirsig behind and think for yourself.
dmb says:
Quibble about the finer points?! Nothing could be further from the truth. I'm
saying that you and Marsha are just plain wrong about the most basic
distinctions and core concepts. Your claims directly contradict what Pirsig
says. That's why I quote him in response to Marsha's anti-intellectual
nonsense. There is a mountain of textual evidence and yet you both persist in
ignoring it. Reason isn't the "answer" (whatever that means?) but it is
certainly the focus of his project.
"the thing to be analyzed, is not Quality, but those peculiar habits of thought
called 'squareness' that sometimes prevent us from seeing it. ..The subject for
analysis, the patient on the table, was no longer Quality, but analysis itself.
Quality was healthy and in good shape. Analysis, however, seemed to have
something wrong with it that prevented it from seeing the obvious."
"He did nothing for Quality or the Tao. What benefited was reason."
"He [Phaedrus] felt that the solution started with a new philosophy, or he saw
it as even broader than that...a new spiritual rationality...in which the
ugliness and the loneliness and the spiritual blankness of dualistic
technological reason would become illogical. Reason was no longer to be "value
free." Reason was to be subordinate, logically, to Quality."
"So I guess what I'm trying to say is that the solution to the problem isn't
that you abandon rationality but that you expand the nature of rationality so
that it's capable of coming up with a solution."
"Now I want to show that that classic pattern of rationality can be
tremendously improved, expanded and made far more effective through the formal
recognition of Quality in its operation."
These passages are quite explicit and clear, so much that I can't believe
anyone needs to do anything fancy to "interpret" their meaning. All you gotta
do is read and think just a very little bit. What he's saying is very clear and
obvious.
The subject for analysis is analysis itself. What benefited was reason. The
point and purpose of the MOQ is a root expansion of rationality. The MOQ is a
new philosophy, a new spiritual rationality.
The "solution to the problem ISN'T that you abandon rationality", he says.
Quite the opposite. You "EXPAND the nature of rationality."
That's is why your (and Marsha's) anti-intellectual bullshit is just plain
wrong. It turns the core concept and main purpose on its head. It's like the
anti-MOQ. This upside reading is not an alternative interpretation. It's just
wrong. It is just a willfully ignorant contradiction of all the evidence.
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
