dmb, I have never heard of a debate where a participant reads bare naked quotes without explaining (as they understand it) the quotes relevance to the topic. You have no idea. Marsha
On Mar 4, 2013, at 3:28 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: > > Arlo said to Krimel: > See, right there you are back in S/O logic. You've just placed 'static > quality' (both the subject and the object) as prior to 'experience'. Once you > done this, using the labels of static, dynamic and quality won't undo the S/O > damage. I get that this shift (Quality preceding both subjects and objects) > is a big one, but its at the heart of both ZMM and LILA, and I don't think > you're really understanding Pirsig if you don't get this very significant > foundational statement. You can disagree with Pirsig, to be sure. But > given that the alternative you seem to propose (static quality existing prior > to experience) is simply SOM using Pirsig's terms, there is likely not much > for me to discuss. > > dmb says: > Exactly. It's very refreshing to see somebody else articulate this very > crucial point. Thank you, Arlo. > > It's not just Krimel, of course. This is exactly where lots of discussion > participants fall down. The problem, like you say, is basically converting > the MOQ back into SOM. The problem is trying to understand the central > distinction of the MOQ (static and dynamic) in terms of SOM, which is always > going to be a misunderstanding. The MOQ is meant to replace SOM, of course. > > It is a big shift. It's nothing short of a "radical reconstruction of > philosophy". When James first articulated his stance against SOM, it "shook > the world". But what really makes this continued misunderstanding so tragic > is that the chief offenders consistently refuse to take the textual evidence > seriously. These evasions happen in all kinds of ways, and I suppose that > some more sincere than others. I presented two pieces of textual evidence for > this anti-SOM move, one from James and one from Pirsig, and both of them > simply disappeared and played no role whatsoever in Krimel's reply. I mean, > what could possibly be more relevant than a quote on the topic from the text > we're supposedly here to discuss? What's better than an additional quote from > the philosopher Pirsig is quoting - in the text we're supposedly here to > discuss? Sorry, but that is not the kind of thing that an honest debater will > do. That's just a refusal to play by the basic rules of the game. It's like > knocki ng > the game board over whenever it's not going well. It's cheating, basically. > > Krimel said: > > > .... Pirsig waxes so eloquent in Lila about the virtue of DQ that he > dismisses its dark chaotic side. Pure DQ is almost always bad. ... > > dmb says: > Quite the opposite is true, actually. Lila is largely focused on the static > side of things. In the second book, Pirsig says he'd that in his first book > he had pretty much ignored the philosophologists (academic professionals) and > they had pretty much returned the favor. So Lila aims to shed the "cult > classic" reputation and articulate an a coherent set of idea, a philosophical > vision and he even get philosophological. That's where mainstream American > pragmatist like James come into the picture. But even back in ZAMM the > mission is to improve rationality. Yes, it is a form of philosophical > mysticism too, but that doesn't preclude the articulation of a coherent set > of ideas and the problem to be solved is an intellectual problem. > > "To understand what he was trying to do it's necessary to see that PART of > the landscape, INSEPARABLE from it, which MUST be understood, is a figure in > the middle of it, sorting sand into piles. To see the landscape without > seeing this figure is not to see the landscape at all. To reject that part of > the Buddha that attends to the analysis of motorcycles is to miss the Buddha > entirely. ... About the Buddha that exists independently of any analytic > thought much has been said - some would say TOO much, and would question any > attempt to add to it. But about the Buddha that exists WITHIN analytic > thought, and GIVES THAT ANALYTIC THOUGHT ITS DIRECTION, virtually nothing has > been said, and there are historic reasons for this. But history keeps > happening, and it seems no harm and maybe some positive good to add to our > historical heritage with some talk in this area of discourse." > > Later in the book he expresses the same sentiment with respect to Taoism. He > did nothing for Quality or the Tao. They're just fine without his help, he > says. What benefited was reason. And then in Lila he comes right out and > declares his intentions to focus on the static side. > > "...In the past Phaedrus' own radical bias caused him to think of Dynamic > Quality alone and neglect static patterns of quality. Until now he had always > felt that these static patterns were dead. They have no love. They offer no > promise of anything. To succumb to them is to succumb to death, since that > which does not change cannot live. But now he was beginning to see that this > radical bias weakened his own case. Life can't exist on Dynamic Quality > alone. It has no staying power. To cling to Dynamic Quality alone apart from > any static patterns is to cling to chaos." > > "Static quality patterns are dead when they are exclusive, when they demand > blind obedience and suppress Dynamic change. But static patterns, > nevertheless, provide a necessary stabilizing force to protect Dynamic > progress from degeneration. Although Dynamic Quality, the Quality of freedom, > creates this world in which we live, these patterns of static quality, the > quality of order, preserve our world. Neither static nor Dynamic Quality can > survive without the other." > > > > Yes sir. The MOQ's static-dynamic distinction is the key. It's the first move > and without that the rest of it won't make any sense. If you fall down at > this point, you're talking about something other than MOQ. If you get what > Pirisg is saying, then you understand why this is not a trivial matter. It's > a fatal mistake. > > > 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 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
