Hello everyone On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 7:57 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]>wrote:
> dmb says: > > Yes, it is good to be reminded of what these two quotes are actually > about, rather than some weird distortion that Marsha wants to impose on > them. > > Platt said: > After all, the MOQ is an SOM document based on SOM reasoning. > > Pirsig replied: > "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) > > Dan: I agree these are a couple of great quotes. Here Robert Pirsig seems to be saying that yes, he (like anyone else who manipulates symbolic English language representing reality) uses subject/object reasoning to explicate the MOQ and yet that doesn't necessarily mean we as readers should stop there, as Platt and Bo have done. We need to reach out to a more expanded rationality offered by the MOQ and yet at the same time we must not lose sight of the need to make it understandable to a six year old. To that end, we should make it as simple as possible rather than endlessly twisting words into nonsensical notions that have no relationship with the world in general. > Platt:So, I fully agree with Bo’s insight that the SOM and the > intellectual level are one and the same. To support it, to protect it, to > avoid losing it and sinking back to “anything goes” irrationalism or a > “because God says so” mentality, we need to recognize its vulnerability to > attacks from academic philosophers, social do-gooders, spiritual > evangelists, and its own internal paradoxes. To that end, the MOQ is the > best S/O answer I’ve found yet. > > > Pirsig:"I think this conclusion undermines the MOQ, although that is > obviously not Platt’s intention. It is like saying that science is really a > form of religion. There is some truth to that, but it has the effect > dismissing science as really not very important. 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, Peirce, 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 anything 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." > Dan: Now, here I understand Robert Pirsig as saying in order to begin forming an understanding with the MOQ we need to put aside what we know in favor of what we do not know. That doesn't necessarily mean we must forego the studying of other philosophers (even though I pretty much leave that to the scholars here) but rather leave off with the classifying of what the MOQ has to say in comparison with what has been said. > > > dmb says: > > That's the view being politely smacked down by Pirsig: "Bo’s insight that > the SOM and the intellectual level are one and the same". Dan: Yes there is that, sure. From what I gather, Bo's 'insight' was so completely incongruous with the MOQ that it was given short shrift in the Lila's Child annotations. I am pretty sure that's why Bo was disappointed in the book. But there is more here: Robert Pirsig seems to be saying that rather than comparing it with all the philosophers who came before, we should be seeking to understand something new like the MOQ, where the central reality is experience and not the conceptions arising from experience. Yes, I know he uses the qualifier 'direct' with experience but there is no need for that... not if we understand what he's saying. See, Bo and Platt are trapped. They believe we experience static quality, that our intellect is ruled by subjects and objects, and consequently they are forced into denying the most important part of the MOQ, namely its central reality. This type of thinking undermines the MOQ. And yes, they, like others here, were very good at picking and choosing selective quotes to bolster their opinions even to the point of claiming Robert Pirsig is wrong about his own metaphysics. What I find both sad and frustrating is that Robert Pirsig has directly addressed these concerns and yet so many people continue to find ways to ignore it. And no, I am not jumping on the 'pick on Marsha' bandwagon in saying that though I do think her continued support of Bo's 'insight' tends to put her in a somewhat dubious light. Thank you, Dan http://www.danglover.com 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
