Krimel said: In ZMM Pirsig uses the Tao to elucidate the cultural division between the romantic and classic modalities. He shows how experience in the lifeworld gets parsed into these two approaches or default modes of engagement. The romantic emphasizes the affective, analog, heuristic, irrational qualities of experience while the classic relies rational, algorithmic, logical and structured qualities of experience. ....The Tao is the ultimate metaphysical tool for uniting binaries. Nowhere does Pirsig suggest otherwise. ....
dmb says: Nope, that's pure drivel. You have no idea what you're talking about and you're a very bad reader too. Apparently, you cannot see the most obvious parallels in conception and this whole exercise is a steaming pile of nonsense. [Krimel] This is immature frustrated schoolyard bully bullshit. Much as I think it reflects the shallowness of what follows, I advise you to watch your mouth. [dmb] The opening line of the Tao Te Ching says, "The Tao that can be named is not the true Tao" and in ZAMM he translates this into, "The quality that can be defined is not the Absolute Quality". The Tao, like Quality in ZAMM or DQ in Lila, cannot be named because names are static and Dynamic Quality is not. That's why his metaphysics did nothing for either Quality or the Tao. DUH! As soon as you name it, it is static quality. Pirsig is obviously quite consistent in this and the fact that you can't see such an obvious point only serves to make you look like an idiot. [Krimel] The Tao te Ching has the marvelous quality of performing itself. There are hundreds of translations and each is unique. It is a work the bears repeated reading of its various incarnations. While Tao seems to be used in many translations, the word has also been translates as the Way, the Nameless, Reason, the Principle of Nature. Pirsig is certainly with the bounds of tradition to translate it however he likes. But this does nothing to establish equivalence the way you have. You just named three things defined them as being unnamable and the declared them to be the same based on your definition. This is supposed to be philosophy not magic. Pirsig does not say this, you do. What entitles you to speak for Pirsig this way? To name something is to encode an experience as a symbol. It is to make a continuous analog event into something bounded and discrete, digital. The name is static as code is static but its referent (the experience indicated by it, associated with it or connect to it) is always a moving target. Very little of our lives in the living of them, actually needs this. It is a technique, a skill we learn. This applies to every word! The dog that can be spoken is not the true dog. The couch that can be spoken cannot be sat upon. The TV that can be spoken of cannot be watched. Whatever has been spoken has been chopped up into bits, data, difference. You would have us believing that dogs and couches and TVs as chopped up bits are all the same thing. [dmb] The next step is to simply repeat exactly what Arlo said: [Krimel] I have already addressed what Arlo said. Try to keep up. 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
