dmb asks Marsha again: Isn't it true that you subscribe to Bo's view on SOM, the view that Pirsig is so nicely smacking down in these quotes? (Which is their original and intended context.) Isn't a bit hypocritical to remind anyone but yourself?
> From: [email protected] > Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 19:36:44 -0400 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [MD] philosophology > > > Hi dmb, > > On Apr 19, 2013, at 4:20 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Marsha said: > > Yes, it is good to be reminded of these two quotes again... > > > > > > dmb says: > > Isn't it true that you subscribe to Bo's view on SOM, the view that Pirsig > > is so nicely smacking down in these quotes? Isn't a bit hypocritical to > > remind anyone but yourself? > > > > > > > > "It employs SOM reasoning the way SOM reasoning employs social structures > > such as courts and journals and learned societies to make itself known. SOM > > reasoning is not subordinate to these social structures, and the MOQ is not > > subordinate to the SOM structures it employs. Remember that the central > > reality of the MOQ is not an object or a subject or anything else. It is > > understood by direct experience only and not by reasoning of any kind. > > Therefore to say that the MOQ is based on SOM reasoning is as useful as > > saying that the Ten Commandments are based on SOM reasoning. It doesn't > > tell us anything about the essence of the Ten Commandments and it doesn't > > tell us anything about the essence of the MOQ." (RMP, 'LILA's Child', > > Annotation 132) > > > > > > > > "The MOQ is in opposition to subject-object metaphysics. To say that it is > > a part of that system which it opposes sounds like a dismissal. I have read > > that the MOQ is the same as Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Hegel, James, > > Pierce, Nieztsche, Bergson, and many others even though these people are > > not held to be saying the same as each other. This kind of comparison is > > what I have meant by the term, "philosophology." It is done by people who > > are not seeking to understand what is written but only to classify it so > > that they don't have to see it as any thing new. God knows, the MOQ has > > never had two better friends than Bo and Platt, so this is no criticism of > > their otherwise brilliant thinking. It's just that I see a lowering of the > > quality of the MOQ itself if you follow this path of subordinating it to > > that which it opposes." (RMP, 'LILA's Child', Annotation 133) > > Marsha: > Can you read? The subject line says 'philosophology'. Read again what > Annotation 133 says about philosophology and try to understand RMP's words in > that context. Do you understand the word 'context'? > > > Marsha > > > > > > 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
